Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ben-Ami, 193 A.3d 178

In Oct. 2011 Joshua Francoeur, a high‑school student and son of the named insured, planned and executed an ambush, approaching Jonathan Ben‑Ami from behind in a classroom and punching him multiple times in the face, causing serious injuries including a broken jaw.
Francoeur enlisted friends, induced a teacher to unlock the classroom door, and attacked while Ben‑Ami was likely unaware (wearing headphones); the assault was premeditated and not a spontaneous scuffle.
Ben‑Ami obtained a consent judgment for $150,000 against Francoeur, conditioned on the outcome of a declaratory action by Vermont Mutual (Francoeur’s father’s homeowner insurer) seeking a ruling that the policy’s "expected or intended" bodily‑injury exclusion bars coverage.
At bench trial the superior court found Francoeur subjectively intended to strike Ben‑Ami but credited his testimony that he did not subjectively intend or consider the extent of the resulting injury (broken jaw), and held the exclusion did not apply; Vermont Mutual appealed.
The Law Court held that, given the premeditation, ambush tactic, nature and location of blows, and severity of injury, the evidence compelled a finding that Francoeur subjectively foresaw (expected) bodily injury, triggering the exclusion; judgment for insurer vacated the trial court judgment and remanded for entry for Vermont Mutual.

Issue	Ben‑Ami's Argument	Vermont Mutual's Argument	Held
Whether policy exclusion for "bodily injury ... which is expected or intended by the insured" bars coverage for injuries from Francoeur's assault	The trial court: Francoeur only intended to hit Ben‑Ami, not to cause the extent of injury; thus exclusion does not apply	The assault was deliberate and premeditated; insurer argues injuries were subjectively expected or intended, so exclusion applies	Held: Evidence compelled conclusion Francoeur subjectively foresaw (expected) bodily injury; exclusion applies and insurer not liable
Whether Francoeur was an "insured" under the policy (resident status)	Ben‑Ami: Francoeur qualified as a resident and thus an insured under the policy	Vermont Mutual: Francoeur’s living/relationship facts remove him from insured definition	Not reached (court resolved case on exclusion ground)

Patrons‑Oxford Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 426 A.2d 888 (Me. 1981) (interprets "expected or intended" exclusion to require subjective intent or subjective foresight of injury)
Landry v. Leonard, 720 A.2d 907 (Me. 1998) (holds certain inherently injurious criminal acts will be deemed to carry intent to cause resulting bodily injury)
Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hancock, 634 A.2d 1312 (Me. 1993) (identifies egregious, inherently injurious conduct excluded from coverage)
Perreault v. Me. Bonding & Cas. Co., 568 A.2d 1100 (Me. 1990) (harm so likely from the act that intent to commit act carries intent to cause resulting injury)
State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bragg, 589 A.2d 35 (Me. 1991) (example of categorical exclusion for heinous conduct)
Worcester Ins. Co. v. Fells Acres Day Sch., Inc., 558 N.E.2d 958 (Mass. 1990) (reasoning that deliberate striking in the face is inherently injurious and supports imputing intent to harm)