## Facts

- An 11-year-old entered an elementary school building after hours and deliberately ignited trash inside the building, and the fire spread, causing extensive property damage.
- The school district sued the child and his parents, alleging the child caused the fire and the parents negligently failed to supervise despite knowledge of his fire-setting history.
- The parents held a homeowner’s liability policy issued by Unigard, covering sums the insured became legally obligated to pay because of property damage caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident.”
- The policy also excluded coverage for property damage “expected or intended by the insured.”
- The child testified he intended to start the trash fire but did not intend to damage the school building.
- Unigard filed a declaratory judgment action against the school district’s insurers (including Argonaut) seeking a declaration that Unigard had no duty to defend or indemnify the child or parents in the underlying suit.
- The trial court declared Unigard owed no defense or indemnity because the fire was not an “accident” and thus not an “occurrence.”
- The school district’s insurers appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether property damage from a fire intentionally ignited by an insured minor, who claims he did not intend the ultimate extent of damage, is an “accident” and thus an “occurrence” under the homeowner’s policy.
2. Whether the policy’s “expected or intended by the insured” exclusion bars coverage when the insured intentionally started the fire but disclaims intent to cause the resulting building damage.
3. Whether negligence allegations against the parents can create a duty to defend where the alleged harm flows from an intentional ignition.

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the declaratory judgment for Unigard.
- The court held the loss was not an “accident” and therefore not an “occurrence” within the policy’s coverage grant.
- As a result, Unigard had no duty to defend or indemnify the child or his parents in the school district’s action.

## Legal Principles

- When a liability policy limits coverage to an “occurrence” defined as an “accident,” deliberate conduct that initiates the harm-producing event is generally not accidental for coverage purposes.
- Coverage analysis turns on the insured’s conduct and intent as framed by policy language referring to “the insured,” rather than on how the underlying complaint labels the claim.
- An insured’s denial of intent to cause the precise scope of damage does not convert an intentionally set fire in a building into a covered accident where substantial property damage is a natural consequence.
- Negligence allegations against other insureds do not necessarily create a duty to defend if the alleged facts, taken as true, describe a non-accidental event or otherwise fall outside the policy’s coverage grant.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that intentionally igniting a fire inside a school was not an “accident” under the homeowner’s policy, so the event was not a covered “occurrence” and Unigard owed neither a defense nor indemnity for the resulting property-damage suit.


Unigard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 20 Wn. App. 261, 579 P.2d 1015 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978)