## Facts

- Michael J. Greenfield held a homeowner’s insurance policy issued by Minnesota Fire and Casualty Company providing personal liability coverage for damages caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” subject to exclusions including expected/intended injury and certain criminal or business-related conduct.
- Angela C. Smith (age 18) went to Greenfield’s home seeking heroin; Greenfield sold her heroin labeled “Suicide” in exchange for marijuana and money.
- Smith voluntarily injected the heroin at the home, became lethargic, and was left on the floor under blankets for an extended period while others left the residence.
- Smith remained incapacitated overnight and was found dead the next day where she had been left.
- Greenfield delayed contacting authorities and later pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and unlawful delivery of heroin, among other offenses.
- Smith’s parents brought wrongful-death and survival claims against Greenfield; Minnesota Fire filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of no duty to defend or indemnify.

## Issues

1. Whether the claims arising from Greenfield’s sale of heroin and Smith’s overdose death alleged an “occurrence” (an “accident”) under the homeowner’s policy.
2. Whether the insurer had a duty to defend or indemnify where the insured’s conduct was intentional criminal drug distribution.
3. Whether public policy bars enforcement of liability coverage for civil liability stemming from the insured’s intentional sale of heroin, regardless of policy wording.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of coverage and held Minnesota Fire had no duty to defend or indemnify Greenfield.
- The Court rejected the intermediate appellate court’s use of an “inferred intent” doctrine to deny coverage.
- The Court grounded the result strictly on public policy: enforcing coverage for liability arising directly from the insured’s intentional heroin distribution would be contrary to Pennsylvania public policy.

## Legal Principles

- Pennsylvania courts may refuse to enforce contractual insurance coverage when enforcement would violate clearly expressed public policy.
- Public policy against illegal narcotics distribution, reflected in legislative classification of heroin as a highly dangerous controlled substance, precludes shifting the civil financial consequences of intentional heroin dealing to an insurer.
- In this context, denial of coverage may rest on public policy even if coverage terms (such as “occurrence” or exclusions) could be disputed.
- The “inferred intent” doctrine should not be automatically extended beyond established contexts to conclusively presume intent to injure from the act of selling heroin; public policy provides an independent basis to deny coverage.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a homeowner’s insurer owes no defense or indemnity for wrongful-death and survival claims arising from the insured’s intentional criminal sale of heroin that resulted in an overdose death, because enforcing coverage would violate Pennsylvania public policy, and the court declined to base its decision on inferred intent.


Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A.2d 854 (Pa. 2004)