## Facts

- Gary Pachucki, a printer at a Milwaukee workplace, was injured during a coworker “greening pin war,” in which participants shot small metal pins with rubber bands.
- Three coworkers shot greening pins in Pachucki’s direction; a pin struck his right eye and injured his cornea.
- Pachucki sued the coworkers for damages and also sued their parents’ homeowners insurers, asserting coverage because the coworkers were additional insureds under those policies.
- The policies provided personal liability coverage but excluded (1) injury “arising out of business pursuits” and (2) injury “expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.”
- At the coverage trial, evidence showed participants had prior experience with injury from greening pins (including bleeding), and at least one coworker intended to hit Pachucki but did not intend to hit his eye specifically.

## Issues

1. Whether the homeowners policies’ exclusion for bodily injury “expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured” bars coverage when the insured intentionally shoots a projectile at a person but does not specifically intend the particular injury that occurs.
2. Whether the workplace “greening pin war” fell within the policies’ business-pursuits exclusion.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed interlocutory judgments dismissing Republic Insurance Company and Underwriters Insurance Company from the action.
- The court held the intentional-acts exclusion applied because the insureds intentionally engaged in conduct directed at Pachucki from which bodily injury was a natural and probable consequence.
- The exclusion did not require proof that the insureds intended the exact injury (eye injury) that resulted.

## Legal Principles

- Under a liability policy excluding injury “expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured,” intent to injure may be inferred from an intentional act when bodily harm is the natural and probable consequence, or is substantially certain to result, from the conduct.
- The intentional-acts exclusion does not require that the insured subjectively intend the specific injury or the precise body part harmed; it is enough that the insured intentionally acted in a manner from which some bodily injury was reasonably expected.
- Evidence of prior harm and awareness of risk may support an inference that resulting injury was “expected or intended” within the meaning of the exclusion.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that homeowners insurers owed no liability coverage because the coworkers deliberately shot metal pins at Pachucki and bodily injury was a foreseeable and substantially certain result, even though the coworkers did not intend the specific eye injury that occurred.


Pachucki v. Republic Ins. Co., 89 Wis. 2d 703, 278 N.W.2d 898 (Wis. 1979)