USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. Carr, 225 A.3d 357

In April 2016 Trinity Carr assaulted Amy Joyner‑Francis in a high‑school bathroom; Joyner‑Francis suffered sudden cardiac death after the altercation, with preexisting heart defects contributing.
Prosecutors and this Court previously concluded the assault contributed to Joyner‑Francis’s death based on video and medical evidence.
Joyner‑Francis’s estate and parents sued Carr in two civil actions for wrongful death and personal injury; Carr sought defense and indemnity under her mother’s USAA homeowner’s policy.
USAA filed a declaratory‑judgment action seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Carr because the policy covers only injuries caused by an "occurrence" defined as an "accident," and it contains an exclusion for injuries "reasonably expected or intended by an insured even if the resulting bodily injury ... is of a different kind."
The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Carr; the Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) whether an event is an "accident" is determined from the insured’s perspective, and (2) the policy exclusion for intended injuries applies because Carr intended to cause bodily harm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Joyner‑Francis’s death was caused by an "accident" under the policy	Carr: whether an event is an "accident" is judged from the victim’s viewpoint; the death was unforeseen by the victim, so it is covered	USAA: whether an event is an "accident" is judged from the insured’s viewpoint; Carr intended the assault, so it was not an accident	Held: Perspective is the insured’s; Carr intended the assault, so it was not an "accident" and Coverage Clause does not apply
Whether the policy’s intended‑injury exclusion bars coverage even if the death were an "accident"	Carr: exclusion ambiguous and should be construed against insurer; thus it does not bar coverage	USAA: exclusion unambiguously excludes injuries an insured reasonably expects or intends even if the resulting harm is different or greater	Held: Exclusion reads to exclude coverage where insured intended bodily injury; Carr intended to cause injury so exclusion applies

Hudson v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 569 A.2d 1168 (Del. 1990) (discusses viewpoints for defining "accident" in auto‑insurance context and resolves on public‑policy grounds)
Cannon v. State, 181 A.3d 615 (Del. 2018) (court evaluated facts/video showing assault contributed to death)
State Farm v. Johnson, 320 A.2d 345 (Del. 1974) (policy interpreted to accord with reasonable expectations of purchaser)
Steigler v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 384 A.2d 398 (Del. 1978) (insurance contracts construed against drafter)
Hallowell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 443 A.2d 925 (Del. 1982) (clear, unambiguous policy language will be enforced)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Hackendorn, 605 A.2d 3 (Del. Super. Ct. 1991) (Superior Court adopted injured‑party viewpoint for "accident" under homeowner’s policy)
Camac v. Hall, 698 A.2d 394 (Del. Super. Ct. 1996) (Superior Court followed Hackendorn in treating assault as an "accident" from victim’s perspective)