By one view, the nature and purpose of certain types of coverages requires that the question of whether or not an injury is accidental must be determined from the victim's standpoint. By the opposing view, an automobile liability policy insures the tortfeasor, not the victim, and whatever constitutes an “accident”—absent policy language to the contrary—should be decided from the viewpoint of the tortfeasor. Whichever viewpoint forms the basis of the courts' determination, the courts will focus on a reasonable person standard within the context of the factual underpinning of the happening of the accident.

That being said, when the word “occurrence” is substituted for “accident” in an insurance policy, courts hold that the intention manifested by this change is to broaden coverage. However, where the policy defines the term “occurrence” as an accident resulting in injury neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured, courts have held the terms may be synonymous.