Schinner v. Gundrum, 811 N.W.2d 431

Schinner sues West Bend Insurance and Gundrum after serious injuries from an assault by an underage partygoer at a party Gundrum hosted on family business property.
Schinner argues the circuit court erred by finding no occurrence under the homeowners policy and by applying a non-insured location exclusion.
Undisputed facts: Gundrum, a resident son, hosted the party in a shed on family business property; shed housed personal property including snowmobiles listed in the policy.
During the party, Gundrum allegedly provided alcohol to Cecil, who was under the legal drinking age, and Cecil assaulted Schinner; the assault was intentional by Cecil, not Gundrum.
Schinner filed a negligence claim alleging Gundrum’s provision of alcohol contributed to the assault; West Bend moved for summary judgment and was dismissed; on appeal, the denial of West Bend’s dismissal is challenged.
The court analyzes whether the assault constitutes an accident/occurrence and whether the non-insured location exclusion applies, under Wisconsin insurance-law standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the assault qualifies as an 'occurrence	Schinner asserts the assault is an 'accident' under the policy, thus an 'occurrence'.	West Bend contends no 'occurrence' because the assault was intentional toward the insured or a third party.	Yes; the assault is an 'occurrence' under the policy.
Whether the non-insured location exclusion applies	Schinner contends the injuries did not arise out of an uninsured location.	West Bend argues the shed is not an insured location or its use is not connected to residence under the exclusion.	The exclusion does not apply; injuries do not arise out of the shed in a way that triggers the exclusion.

Fox Wisconsin Corp. v. Century Indem. Co., 263 N.W. 567 (Wis. 1935) (injury viewed from standpoint of injured party determines accident)
Tomlin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Liab. Ins. Co., 290 N.W.2d 285 (Wis. 1980) (view injuries from insured or injured party standpoint to determine accident)
Button v. American Mut. Accident Ass'n, 65 N.W. 861 (Wis. 1896) (injury by another can be accidental from injured party’s view)
Estate of Sustache v. American Family Mut. Insurance Co., 751 N.W.2d 845 (Wis. 2008) (insurer’s insured conduct not accidental may negate coverage; conflicts on viewpoint)
James Cape & Sons Co. v. Streu Construction Co., 775 N.W.2d 117 (Wis. 2009) (fortuity principle; intentional, criminal acts by insured not covered)
Everson v. Lorenz, 695 N.W.2d 298 (Wis. 2005) (discusses interpretive approach to 'accident' and 'occurrence' with emphasis on standpoint)
Patrick v. Head of the Lakes Cooperative Electric Ass'n, 295 N.W.2d 205 (Wis. 1980) (policy definition of 'occurrence' and view toward insured’s actions)