In Beckwith v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Co., 83 P.3d 275 (Nev. 2004), the Nevada Supreme Court addressed whether a homeowners policy provided liability coverage for a voluntarily intoxicated insured's act of striking a person in the face. Beckwith had ingested alcohol, LSD, and marijuana during a party at a friend's house. While walking home, Beckwith experienced hallucinations, disrobed, and entered a trailer park in downtown Reno, Nevada. Mr. Reccelle, a resident of the park, confronted Beckwith because he was concerned about children who were playing in the area. As Mr. Reccelle approached him, Beckwith began screaming and writhing on the ground. Mr. Reccelle attempted to reassure Beckwith, but Beckwith hit Mr. Reccelle in the face, rupturing his eye.
The insured pled no contest to the criminal assault charges. Mr. Reccelle filed a civil complaint against the insured, alleging assault, battery, and negligence. The insured tendered the lawsuit to State Farm under his homeowner's policy. State Farm accepted the defense under a reservation of rights and brought a declaratory judgment action to have the coverage questions resolved. State Farm filed a summary judgment motion on the basis that the incident was not a covered occurrence and that the intentional acts exclusion precluded coverage. The exclusion barred coverage for bodily injury or property damage "(1) which is either expected or intended by the insured; or (2) which is the result of willful and malicious acts of the insured."
The insured argued that the intentional acts exclusion did not apply because, given his advanced stage of intoxication, the insured did not intend to injure the man and, because the insured believed he had acted in self-defense, the conduct was not malicious. The district court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment and the insured appealed.
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, first finding that the term "accident" means "a happening that is not expected, foreseen or intended." Citing its decision in Mallin v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 839 P.2d 105 (Nev. 1992), the court opined that "intent" or "intention" denotes a design or desire to cause the consequences of one's acts and a belief that given consequences are substantially certain to result from the acts. The court therefore concluded that an insured's "supposed inability to control his acts [was] not the same as an inability to intend his acts." The court then extended its holding in Mallin, determining that the insured's act of striking the man was a non-accidental, intentional act, even though the insured did not intend to harm the man. Concluding that State Farm owed no duty to defend or indemnify the insured, the court found that the intentional acts exclusion dovetailed with the reasonable construction of the policy that an occurrence requires an accidental event.