In affirming the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the insured, the appellate court noted that in order for the intentional acts exclusion to apply, “the insurer must prove that there is no possible legal or factual basis to support a finding that, from the point of view of the insured, the bodily injuries inflicted were unexpected, unintended and unforeseen.” The court further affirmed the lower court’s finding that the insured “did not expect, intend or foresee that [the underlying] plaintiff would end up crashing through the plate glass window or be injured in any way when [the insured] placed him in a bear hug. Plaintiff’s injuries were not inherently likely to result from the nature and force of a defensive bear hug.” Thus, the court found the intentional acts exclusion inapplicable.
The court also held that the policy’s criminal acts exclusion did not apply, even though the insured had pleaded guilty to criminal harassment in the underlying case, because the insurer had failed to include that ground in its disclaimer letter to the insured.