A student and two of his friends decided to play a prank by burning some letters into the Astroturf of the football stadium at their university. The students poured lighter fluid onto the field in the shape of the desired wording and set it on fire. The resulting damage to the field was in excess of half a million dollars.

The university filed suit against the students to recover damages. One of the students submitted the suit to his parent's homeowners insurance company. The insurer denied both defense and indemnification based upon the expected and intended exclusion.

The insureds and their son next filed suit against their insurer for not defending and providing coverage. The insurer filed for summary judgement based upon the cited exclusion. The original court decision agreed with the insurer and against the insureds and their son. They in turn, filed for reconsideration and appeal. The case reached U.S. District Court.

The decision of the U.S. District Court was affirmed in favor of the insurer and against the insureds. Although the students did not intend the extent of the damage that resulted, they did in fact intend to inflict some degree of injury and damage to the football field. It was the ruling of the court that the "harm was controlled by the insured, and it is this harm which the companies should not be forced to insure against."

(Nationwide Insurance, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Board of Trustees of The University of Illinois, Defendants-Appellants. 7th Cir. Nos. 96-1720 United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. June 19 1997. CCH 1997 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 6168.)