## Facts

- North Star Mutual Insurance Company issued T.F. a homeowner’s policy effective July 9, 1983 to July 9, 1984 providing personal liability coverage for “bodily injury” caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an accident.
- In May 1984, T.F. and R.W., both adults, voluntarily engaged in consensual sexual intercourse at T.F.’s home.
- R.W. was later diagnosed with genital herpes and sued T.F., alleging he negligently transmitted the disease; the pleading did not allege intentional conduct.
- T.F. asserted he did not know he had herpes at the time of the intercourse and learned of the condition after a later medical examination.
- The policy contained a standard intentional-acts exclusion for bodily injury “expected or intended” by the insured but contained no specific exclusion for sexually transmitted diseases or disease transmission.
- T.F. tendered defense of R.W.’s suit to North Star; North Star denied a defense and filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling of no duty to defend or indemnify.
- The district court granted summary judgment for North Star; T.F. appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a claim alleging negligent transmission of genital herpes through consensual intercourse can constitute an “occurrence” (accident) triggering a duty to defend under a homeowner’s liability policy.
2. Whether intent to injure must be inferred as a matter of law from consensual sexual intercourse that results in disease transmission, thereby activating the intentional-acts exclusion at the duty-to-defend stage.
3. Whether public policy bars an insurer from defending (or covering) a negligent sexually transmitted disease transmission claim under a homeowner’s policy.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed summary judgment for North Star and remanded.
- The court held North Star had a duty to defend because the negligence claim was at least arguably within the policy’s coverage and the policy contained no specific exclusion for disease transmission.
- The court held intent to injure would not be inferred as a matter of law where the conduct was consensual between adults and there was a material fact dispute regarding negligent transmission and the insured’s knowledge.
- The court rejected North Star’s public policy argument, declining to negate a defense obligation where the claim was arguably covered under the policy terms.

## Legal Principles

- An insurer must defend if any claim against the insured could result in liability for covered damages; if any part of the claim is arguably within coverage, the insurer must defend while reserving rights.
- “Bodily injury” includes sickness or disease; an “occurrence” may include unintended disease transmission if the injury is alleged to be unexpected or unintended from the insured’s standpoint.
- The intentional-acts exclusion applies only when injury was intended or when intent to injure is inferred as a matter of law; consensual adult sexual conduct resulting in disease transmission does not automatically support such an inference when intent and knowledge are factually disputed.
- Public policy does not justify adding exclusions not stated in the policy to defeat a defense obligation for an arguably covered claim.

## Conclusion

The court required the insurer to defend an insured sued for negligent transmission of genital herpes because the complaint alleged accidental injury within the policy’s broad liability grant, intent to injure could not be inferred as a matter of law on a disputed record, and public policy did not override the contract’s absence of a specific exclusion.


N. Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. R.W., 431 N.W.2d 138 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)