Co-Operative Insurance Companies v. Woodward, 45 A.3d 89

James Bennett, Brooke Bennett’s father, administers her estate and petitions for coverage for a claim against Denise Woodward alleging negligent supervision related to her ex-husband’s abduction, assault, and Brooke’s death.
Uncle Michael Jacques, who was married to Woodward, is alleged to have kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and murdered Brooke.
Woodward and Jacques were insured under the same homeowners policy for August 2007–August 2008, with personal liability coverage and an intentional-acts exclusion.
insurer filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that the policy did not cover the underlying claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment, holding there was no coverage due to the intentional acts exclusion and the lack of an applicable occurrence, and Bennett appeals.
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the intentional-acts exclusion applies to all insureds and severability cannot override it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the intentional-acts exclusion bar coverage for all insureds, despite a severability clause?	Severability creates ambiguity that could extend coverage to homeowner.	Exclusion for intentional acts applies to all insureds; severability cannot override.	No; severability cannot override the exclusion; coverage barred.
Was there an “occurrence” given the alleged intentional acts of the uncle?	There was an occurrence under severability that excludes only some acts.	Uncle’s acts were intentional, so there was no accident or occurrence.	No occurrence; acts were intentional, so exclusion applies.
Did the insurer owe a duty to defend or indemnify based on the complaint?	Complaint alleges negligent supervision by homeowner; potential coverage.	Under the policy, no coverage exists due to occurrence defect and intentional acts exclusion.	No duty to defend or indemnify.

N. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Perron, 172 Vt. 204 (2001) (interprets occurrence and exclusion interplay; supports no coverage when acts are intentional)
Serecky v. Nat'l Grange Mut. Ins., 2004 VT 63 (2004) (establishes intent-based determination of accident/occurrence; presumes intent when acts are inherently harmful)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Vose, 2004 VT 121 (2004) (collective effect of ‘an insured’ exclusion on all insureds; severability cannot create coverage)
Bradford Oil Co. v. Stonington Ins. Co., 2011 VT 108 (2011) (insurer’s duty to defend evaluated by comparing policy to complaint; coverage is kept narrow by exclusions)