While at a party, a Mr. Davis, admitted to consuming several beers, sharing a couple of marijuana "joints," and, to the best of his knowledge, a quart of Tequila. Later, Mr. Davis, unable to find his truck, asked a Mr. Foley and a Mr. Feidler for help. When they turned down his request, Mr. Davis wrestled with Mr. Foley. The fight was broken up by Mr. Fiedler. However, Mr. Davis allegedly attacked Mr. Fiedler, stabbing him several times. As a result of the injuries, Mr. Fiedler lost a kidney. Mr. Davis fled the scene of the altercation but was soon captured by police. He later pled "no contest" and was sentenced to several years in prison for aggravated assault.

Mr. Feidler sued Mr. Davis. Later, Mr. Davis came to an agreement over damages with Mr. Feidler. The agreement included assigning his rights to any coverage under his HO policy. Mr. Davis' insurer filed a motion to dismiss the suit. The insurer's position was that the attack was an intentional act, so it is excluded from coverage under Mr. Davis' homeowner policy. The trial court granted a dismissal and Mr. Feidler appealed.

The appeals court reversed the decision based upon their determination that the insured's intoxication affected his ability to form an intent to inflict harm. The trial jury found in favor of Mr. Feidler and awarded damages. The insurer again challenged the decision, claiming that a recent statute which denied individuals from using intoxication as a defense for their acts. The insurer also objected to the fact that the jury's instructions implied that the insurer had the burden of proving whether the policy's exclusion was applicable to the loss.

The state's Supreme Court reviewed the facts of the case and determined that, while the recently passed statute does affect the issue of intoxication and intentional acts, the law could not be applied retroactively to the case. Further, it also concluded that there was nothing improper about placing the burden of proof on the insurer to show that Mr. Davis intended to harm Mr. Feidler. The verdict in favor of the defendant was affirmed.

(Republic Insurance Company, Plaintiff Appellant v. Feidler et ux, Defendants Appellees. ArizCTApp. No. 1 CA-CV 97-00047, March 3, 1998. CCH 1998 Personal and Commercial Liability Cases, Paragraph 6524)