The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reaffirmed Pennsylvania's broad duty to defend. Allegations of unintentional injury, even when they arise in conjunction with intentional injury to others, are sufficient to trigger an insurance company's duty to defend. Although the case takes place in the context of a murder/suicide, the Court found that the insurance company owed a duty to defend allegations of an unintentional shooting, or at least, one that may have been unintentional.

Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie) insured Harold Eugene McCutcheon, Jr. (McCutcheon) under a homeowners' policy and a personal catastrophe policy. His estate was sued by Richard A. Carly (Carly). Erie denied coverage, contending that Carly's injuries were not caused by an accidental "occurrence," but rather were "expected or intended" by McCutcheon. Erie filed a declaratory judgment action, and the trial court found no duty to defend. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed in a published opinion. Erie Ins. Exch. v. Moore, 175 A.3d 999 (Pa. Super. 2017). On April 22, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court, holding that Carly's allegations were sufficient to trigger Erie's duty to defend.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recounted the material facts alleged in Carly's complaint. On the evening of September 26, 2013, McCutcheon broke into the home of his ex-wife, Terry McCutcheon, in order to shoot and kill her, and then kill himself. He communicated these intentions in a note he left for his adult children.  McCutcheon succeeded. He shot and killed Terry and, eventually, himself.