A woman insured by a homeowners policy was involved in a difficult parental custody suit evolving around her daughter, her former son-in-law, and her grandchildren. In order to resolve the situation, the woman attempted to hire a man (her daughter's new husband) to murder the former son-in-law and his lawyer. Her daughter's new husband contacted police authorities, and the woman was arrested and convicted of attempted murder.

The intended victims proceeded to file a civil suit against the woman alleging severe emotional distress, which they eventually won and were awarded damages. The woman's homeowners insurance provider denied both coverage and defense citing the expected and intended injury exclusion.

The woman filed suit against the insurer because, even though the woman intentionally committed the actions leading to her attempted murder conviction, she did not intend to inflict severe emotional injury on the victims. The original trial court affirmed in favor of the insurer and against the woman.

An appeal was made. In the subsequent review, it was ruled that "we therefore hold solicitation to commit murder is an extreme and outrageous act so nearly certain to result in emotional injury to the intended victim and spouse or parent thereof that intent to commit such injury may be inferred from the act." Even though the actual victims of the act did suffer the effects of the woman's acts and were entitled to compensation, and even though the courts were sympathetic to the victims, it was determined that such compensation was excluded by the insurance policy and should not be at the hands of the homeowners insurance carrier.

(Eubanks et. al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant-Appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals No. COA96-145. June 17, 1997, Forsyth County Superior Court, North Carolina. CCH 1997 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 6165.)