## Facts

- Two groups of teenagers argued at a swimming area; William (“Bill”) Swanson left, went home, took his father’s BB gun, and returned with friends.
- From behind a shed about 70–100 feet away, Bill fired three BBs toward the other group’s picnic table area.
- Bill testified he aimed at a sign near the table and intended only to frighten the group; he did not believe he would hit anyone.
- A BB struck Shawna Wagler in the thigh, and another struck Todd Baker in the eye, causing loss of the eye.
- Todd Baker’s parents sued Bill and his parents, alleging negligence.
- The Swansons had liability coverage under a homeowner’s policy and another policy; each contained an exclusion for bodily injury “expected or intended by the insured” or “caused intentionally.”

## Issues

1. Whether an “expected or intended injury” (or “intentional injury”) exclusion defeats coverage upon proof that the insured’s act was intentional, even if the insured did not expect or intend the resulting injury.
2. Whether, on the trial court’s findings, Todd Baker’s injury was “expected or intended” by Bill Swanson so as to trigger the exclusions and eliminate the insurers’ duties to defend and indemnify.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment for the insureds.
- The court held the insurers could not avoid coverage by showing only that Bill intentionally fired the BB gun.
- The court accepted the trial court’s finding that Bill did not intend to injure anyone and did not believe injury was substantially certain to occur.
- Because the injury itself was not expected or intended, the exclusions did not apply, and the insurers owed duties to defend and indemnify.

## Legal Principles

- To invoke an exclusion for injuries “expected or intended by the insured” (or “caused intentionally”), the insurer must prove the insured expected or intended the injury itself, not merely that the insured engaged in an intentional act.
- An injury is “expected or intended” when the insured desired to cause it or knew it was substantially certain to result.
- Exclusions are construed strictly against the insurer; policy language is interpreted in light of reasonable coverage expectations.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court held that intentional-act conduct does not, by itself, trigger an “expected or intended injury” exclusion; the insurer must show the insured intended the resulting injury or expected it as substantially certain, so coverage remained for the BB-gun injury under the trial court’s findings.


Physicians Ins. Co. of Ohio v. Swanson, 58 Ohio St. 3d 189, 569 N.E.2d 906 (Ohio 1991)