Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Fisher Builders, Inc., 2016 MT 91

Jerry and Karen Slack owned a preexisting vacation home on Flathead Lake and obtained a permit to remodel and incorporate the existing structure to retain a nonconforming use; permit required the existing deck to remain unchanged.
The Slacks hired contractor Jeffrey Fisher (Fisher/Fisher Builders) in 2007 to remodel; Fisher elevated the house on I-beams and began dismantling walls, discovered carpenter ant infestation, removed and burned infested boards, and the deck later collapsed.
Lake County issued a cease-and-desist, revoked the permit as the planning department concluded the original structure had been destroyed; the Slacks later settled an administrative appeal with the County for a smaller home.
The Slacks sued Fisher for negligence; Fisher’s insurer, Employers Mutual Casualty Company (EMC), reserved rights, defended under reservation, then filed a declaratory judgment seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify because the policy required an "occurrence" defined as an "accident."
District Court granted EMC summary judgment, finding Fisher’s conduct intentional and not an "occurrence." Fisher settled with the Slacks and assigned policy rights to them; the Slacks appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "occurrence" (defined as "accident") can include intentional acts with unintended consequences	Slacks: an "occurrence" can include intentional acts whose consequences were not intended or expected by the insured	EMC: where policy defines "occurrence" as an "accident," damages from insured's intentional acts are not accidental and therefore not covered	Court: "occurrence" may include intentional acts if the resulting harm was not objectively intended or expected; clarified two‑prong test (act intentional? were consequences objectively intended/expected?).
Whether summary judgment for EMC was appropriate given factual disputes	Slacks: material factual disputes exist about what Fisher actually did, whether he "destroyed" the structure, and whether he violated the permit conditions	EMC: district court findings are supported and summary judgment proper	Court: reversed — factual disputes existed and summary judgment was improper; remanded for further proceedings.

Northwestern Nat’l Cas. Co. v. Phalen, 597 P.2d 720 (Mont. 1979) (an intentional act may still be an "occurrence" if resulting harm was not intended or expected from insured's standpoint)
Miller Mut. Ins. Co. v. Strainer, 663 P.2d 338 (Mont. 1983) (reiterates that intentional acts are not automatically excluded if the injurious consequences were not intended or expected)
Blair v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 167 P.3d 888 (Mont. 2007) (addressed whether deliberate excavation was an "occurrence"; court affirmed denial of coverage but acknowledged analytic inconsistencies with prior authority)
Landa v. Assurance Co., 307 P.3d 284 (Mont. 2013) (held no coverage where tort claims were entirely comprised of intentional misrepresentations—objective intent to cause harm supports exclusion)
Terry v. Nat’l Farmers Union Life Ins. Co., 356 P.2d 975 (Mont. 1960) (example recognizing that some intentional acts may produce accidental consequences)