## Facts

- Stephen B. Kintop was an insured under his parents’ homeowner’s liability policy issued by State Farm.
- The policy excluded coverage for bodily injury “which is either expected or intended by the insured.”
- Kintop had a documented history of erratic, abusive, and violent conduct toward his former girlfriend, including threats with a gun, assaults, and bizarre behavior.
- Early on December 31, 1982, Kintop forced entry into Colleen Hughes’ home while holding a pistol and encountered Paul R. Peterson, who was dating Hughes.
- Peterson fled; Kintop pursued and shot Peterson multiple times, causing serious injuries; Kintop then killed himself.
- Peterson sued Kintop’s estate for damages; State Farm denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment based on the intentional-act exclusion.
- At trial, the only issue submitted to the jury was whether Kintop lacked the mental capacity to intend to injure Peterson at the time of the shooting.
- The trial court excluded Peterson’s psychiatrist expert testimony for lack of foundation; the jury found Kintop had capacity to intend injury, barring coverage.
- The court of appeals reversed; State Farm sought further review.

## Issues

1. Whether an intentional-act exclusion applies when, because of mental illness or defect, the insured lacked cognitive understanding of the act’s nature/wrongfulness or lacked the ability to control conduct.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding psychiatric expert testimony as lacking foundation when based on undisputed facts in evidence posed in a hypothetical.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the judgment for State Farm and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that, for purposes of the exclusion, an insured’s acts are deemed unintentional if, due to mental illness or defect, the insured either:
  - did not know the nature or wrongfulness of the act, or
  - was deprived of the ability to control conduct regardless of any understanding of the act’s nature or wrongfulness.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the psychiatrist’s opinion where it was grounded in undisputed facts in evidence incorporated in a hypothetical question.

## Legal Principles

- An intentional-injury exclusion does not bar coverage when mental illness or defect negates relevant intent by defeating either cognitive capacity (knowledge of nature or wrongfulness) or volitional capacity (ability to control conduct).
- In assessing intent under such exclusions, factfinders must be permitted to consider credible psychiatric evidence bearing on cognitive and volitional impairment.
- Expert opinion testimony may have adequate foundation when based on undisputed facts already admitted into evidence and presented through a proper hypothetical; excluding such testimony can constitute an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court required a mental-illness-sensitive intent analysis for intentional-act exclusions, treating acts as unintentional when severe mental impairment destroys cognitive understanding or volitional control, and ordered a new trial because the exclusion of key psychiatric testimony improperly constrained the jury’s determination of mental capacity.


State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wicka, 474 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 1991)