Thе controversy in this appeal is whether two insurance policies issued by appellant Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) provide coverage for certain fire losses. In particular, we must address policy language which excludes coverage for “intended damages.” This language has not previously been interpreted by the appellate сourts of Maryland.
The parties agree that the losses occurred in the following manner. On the night of 4 October 1981, Frances Sparks, who held a homeowner’s policy and an automobile policy issued by Allstate, permitted her son James to use her car. That night James, with two friends, Greg Bostion and John Schroyer, drove to the premises of Farmers Supply Co., Inc. (Farmers Supply). The youths went to a Farmers Supply feed truck that was parked in or near a mill building, intending to siphon gas from that vehicle into a container. After they began this operation, James, with an extrаordinary lack of good judgment, chose to provide illumination with a cigarette lighter. Gas fumes in the area of the truck ignited. Not surprisingly, the resultant fire destroyed the Farmers Supply mill and substantially all of its contents. Amazingly, the boys were not harmed. The parties concur that the boys intended to steal gas but did not intend to burn Farmers Supply’s property.
To settle the question of whether it might bе liable under the automobile and homeowner’s policies, Allstate brought an action for declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court for Frederick County. Allstate named as defendants Ms. Sparks, hеr son James, Bostion and Schroyer. Other defendants were Farmers Supply, Paul J. Green (owner of Farmers Supply), the insurer of Bostion, and the insurer of Schroyer. The circuit court granted a mоtion to intervene by yet another insurance company, Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Insurance Company, which under a policy issued to Farmers Supply had covered a small part of thе loss. The *741 four insurers each filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Following a hearing on the motions the circuit court judge issued a memorandum opinion. After concluding that there was no genuine disрute as to any material fact, Md.Rule 2-501(e), the judge indicated that he would grant the motion of Pennsylvania Millers. In so ruling the judge held, in part, that Allstate was obligated to provide coverage. The judge also entered an order reflecting this disposition and further stating that Allstate was obligated under both the automobile and homeowner’s policies issued to Ms. Sparks. Allstate now рresents the following question for our review:
[Did] the trial court [err] in ruling that the appellant was obligated to provide insurance coverage to Frances Sparks and James Spаrks as a result of the occurrence at issue under both the automobile insurance policy and the homeowner’s insurance policy issued to Frances Sparks by Allstate?
Allstate first аrgues that the fire in this case was an “intentional act” which was excluded under the terms of both policies. The homeowner’s policy, under a “Family Liability” clause, provided coverаge for “all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages ... caused by an occurrence.” In the applicable definitions section, the homeowner’s policy defines an “Insured” to include members of the “Named Insured’s household,” and defines an “occurrence” as an “accident ... which results, during the policy period, in bodily injury or proрerty damage.” The policy excludes, however, coverage of “property damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the Insured.” Under the autоmobile policy, coverage includes “destruction of property, arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use, including loading and unloading of the owned automobile,” but exсludes “property damage caused intentionally by, or at the direction of, the insured.” We need address only the specific language of the homeowner’s policy, because, as we shall explain *742 below,' the automobile policy contains other language precluding coverage for the fire losses.
Allstate asserts that our interpretation of the exclusion is governed by four decisions of the Court of Appeals, each involving policies covering losses “caused by accident.”
See State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Treas,
Of the four decisions,
Treas
and
Harris & Brooks
denied coverage based on the “caused by accident” language. The
Harris & Brooks
court grounded its interpretation in part on the dictionary definition of “accidеnt,” and concluded therefrom that the clause excluded intentional acts with results not “unforeseen, unusual and unexpected.”
The exclusionary clause in the present case does not contain these words; insteаd it excepts “damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the Insured.” Admittedly, the issue is the same if stated in rough terms: whether the loss was intentional or accidentаl. The precise approach to be used, however, differs in two important respects. First, there is the question of whether the
results
or the
means
must have been intended. The Allstate policy indicatеs, in our view, that the insured must have intended the results (“damages”), not simply the causing act, for coverage not to apply. In contrast, “caused
*743
by accident” is ambiguous with regard to this distinction, as the
Haynes
court noted.
Allstate maintains that the prior decisions should control because the homeowner’s policy elsewhere defines an insured “oсcurrence” as an “accident.” This language and the intended damages exclusion are in pari materia and should be construed together. We do not believe that the generally-phrased definitiоn of “occurrence” suggests an intent to restrict coverage to a greater degree than under the intended damages exclusion.
We find support for our construction of the intended damages clause in treatises and decisions of other states. The circuit court judge cited as authority a Pennsylvania case involving a similar clause applied to faсts quite analogous to those at hand.
See Eisenman v. Hornberger,
[T]he vast majority of courts which have considered such provisions have reached the conclusion that before the insurer may validly disclaim liability, it must be shown that the insured intended by his act to produce the damage which did in fact occur____ We subscribe to such a view. There is a very real distinction between intending an act [and] intending a result and the policy exclusion addresses itself quite clearly to the latter.
The rebuttable presumption that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act that is used in dеtermining responsibility for the consequences of a vol *744 untary act has no application to the interpretation of terms used in insurance contracts. The word “intent” for purpоses of tort law and for purposes of exclusionary clauses in insurance policies denotes that the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act оr believes that consequences are substantially certain to result from it. In order for an act to be intentional, its consequences must be substantially certain to result as oppоsed to the feature of wanton acts that the consequences be only., probably certain to result____
Id. at 29 (footnote omitted). In this case, Allstate conceded that the youths never intended or expected to cause a fire. The circuit court judge, therefore, properly concluded that Allstate could be held liable under the homeowner’s policy.
Allstate also challenges the trial court’s conclusion that coverage applied under both the automobile and the homeowner’s policies. Appellees Green and Pennsylvania Millers agree that the judge erred, in light of language in the policies which render them mutually exclusive. In our view the homeowner’s policy applies and the auto рolicy does not, because the losses did not arise out of the “use” or “loading and unloading” of Ms. Sparks’s car.
See De-Jarnette v. Federal Kemper Insurance Co.,
SO MUCH OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH PROVIDES COVERAGES UNDER THE ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY A UTOMOBILE POLICY REVERSED. BALANCE AFFIRMED.
COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.