New York Subscriber

A

There are some things to consider in this claim. First, the CGL form applies to “bodily injury” caused by an “occurrence.” An “occurrence” is defined in the form as “an accident,” which, according to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, is an “unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance.” Now, the killing apparently was not an accident — at least, not from the killer's viewpoint. But it is the insured's viewpoint, not the killer's that should be considered. See, for example,  Miller v. Continental Ins. Co., 358 N.E.2d 258 (NY App. Ct. 1976). The court concluded that in deciding whether a loss was the result of an accident it must be determined if the loss was “unexpected, unusual, and unforeseen” from the insured's point of view.

In order for exclusion 2.a. — expected or intended bodily injury — to apply, the injury must be expected or intended “from the standpoint of the insured.” This language bears out the definition of an “occurrence” as being accidental from the point of view of the insured. Certainly, the killing was not expected or intended from the insured's standpoint; after all, the claim alleges negligent security, which implies “unexpected, unusual, and unforeseen.”

At the very least, your insured is entitled to a defense under the CGL form.