Judgment for a homeowners insurer was appealed by a boy who was shot in his left eye by a friend who aimed and fired a BB gun in his direction. The trial court had granted summary judgment to the insurer of the friend's parents on the basis of the following intentional act exclusion applicable to personal liability coverage and medical payments to others coverage:

"The insurance afforded by the policy shall not apply to bodily injury or property damage expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured. This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property."

It is undisputed that the two fourteen year-olds had been playing "war" with their BB guns in the back yard of the home of one. Hiding behind various objects, their playful shoot-out resulted in one being hit in the side and feeling a sting and pain. He then shot in the general direction of where he believed his "adversary" to be, causing the serious eye injury.

The distraught boy testified that "....I was intending to shoot him maybe in the arm or leg just to cause a slight sting, sharp pain like he did to me....I didn't want to cause such serious injury."

The appeal court cited Gouger v. Hardtke, 167 Wis.2d 504, 512, 482 N.W.2d 84, 88 (1992) as follows: "An intent to cause injury exists where the actor subjectively intends to cause injury or where injury is substantially certain to occur from the actor's conduct."

It then quoted from Pachucki v. Republic Insurance Company, 89 Wis.2d 703, 712, 278 N.W.2d 898, 903 (1979): "So long as the actor intends to inflict a personal injury, the requisite intent is established even though the actor did not intend the particular injury that occurred."

The court found it irrelevant that the boy did not intend to injure his friend's eye, since he "....intended nevertheless to cause injury, a sting." It concluded that the injury was excluded from coverage under the subject homeowners policy.

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the insurance company and against the claimants.

(CHAPMAN ET AL., Plaintiffs-Coappellants v. WISCONSIN PHYSICIANS SERVICE INSURANCE CORPORATION ET AL, Defendants. Wisconsin Appellate Court. No. 93-1481. September 15, 1994. CCH 1994 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 4982.)