Usaa Casualty Insurance Co. v. Carr

Summary

The Court held that Carr's intentional assault was not an “accident” under the homeowner's policy because that determination turns on the insured's intent, not the victim's perspective. It also held that coverage was independently barred by the policy's intended-injury exclusion because Carr intended to cause bodily injury, even though she did not intend the resulting death. The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to Carr and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with its opinion.