Continental Insurance Co. v. Karen Adams, Andrew Slentz, Estate of John S. Keck

Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion that summary judgment was proper because the language of the contract renders Keck’s mental state irrelevant, I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority’s treatment of Goldsmith’s inferred-intent rule, and to address an argument that the majority ignores, namely that the language of the intentional act exclusion does not apply because Keck did not intend to harm Defendants.1

I

Background

At issue in this case is the applicability of a so-called “intentional act” exclusion to damage caused by the insured, John Keck. The…