Marshall Schinner v. Michael Gundrum, 833 N.W.2d 685

In Dec. 2008 Michael Gundrum (age 21) hosted a large underage drinking party in a windowless shed on family trucking business property; many guests were minors and alcohol was available (including beer Gundrum purchased).
Matthew Cecil, an intoxicated guest known to become belligerent when drunk, assaulted Marshall Schinner outside the shed, causing severe spinal injuries.
Schinner sued Gundrum (host) and Gundrum's homeowner insurer West Bend; Gundrum pled no contest to selling alcohol to minors.
West Bend denied coverage, arguing (1) no "occurrence" because Gundrum’s intentional acts in procuring/encouraging underage drinking were not accidental, and (2) an exclusion bars liability "arising out of" a non‑insured location (the shed was not an insured location under the homeowner policy).
The circuit court granted summary judgment for West Bend; the court of appeals reversed (finding an "occurrence" viewed from injured party and that the location exclusion did not apply). The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Schinner)	Defendant's Argument (Gundrum/West Bend)	Held
Whether the injury was an "occurrence" (i.e., an "accident") under the homeowner policy	The assault (the injury‑causing event) is accidental from the victim's and thus an insured’s standpoint; lack of specific intent to injure triggers coverage	Gundrum’s intentional, illegal acts in planning/hosting/procuring alcohol for an underage party were the cause and were not accidental, so no occurrence	Held: Viewpoint for analysis is the insured’s, and under that analysis Gundrum’s intentional conduct was the substantial cause and not an "occurrence"; no coverage (majority).
Whether the policy exclusion for bodily injury "arising out of" a non‑insured premises bars coverage	Newhouse approach: exclusion applies only when injury correlates with a condition of the premises; here injury does not arise from a premises condition so exclusion shouldn’t apply	"Arising out of" is broad; Schinner’s injury originated in the shed (non‑insured location), so exclusion applies	Held: The phrase "arising out of" is broad; Schinner’s injury arose out of the use of the shed for the illegal party on non‑insured premises, so exclusion would bar coverage even if an occurrence existed.

Tomlin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Liab. Ins. Co., 95 Wis. 2d 215 (1980) (courts often view assaults from injured party's standpoint when deciding "accident")
Doyle v. Engelke, 219 Wis. 2d 277 (1998) (definition of "accident" as an unexpected, undesired event; negligent acts can be "accidental")
Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Girl, Inc., 268 Wis. 2d 16 (2004) (the means or cause must be accidental; unexpected result alone insufficient)
Estate of Sustache v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 311 Wis. 2d 548 (2008) (insured’s intentional assault held not an occurrence where the insured committed the assault)
Everson v. Lorenz, 280 Wis. 2d 1 (2005) (volitional misrepresentation held not an "accident")
Garriguenc v. Love, 67 Wis. 2d 130 (1975) ("arising out of" is broad — means originating from, growing out of, or flowing from)
Newhouse v. Laidig, Inc., 145 Wis. 2d 236 (Ct. App. 1988) (reads "arising out of" more narrowly — asks for correlation between liability and a condition of the premises)
Hedtcke v. Sentry Ins. Co., 109 Wis. 2d 461 (1982) (public‑policy principles disfavor coverage that would permit profiting from wrongdoing)
Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 311 Wis. 2d 492 (2008) (focus on the accidental nature of the causal event, not merely the unexpected result)