St. Paul Guardian issued a homeowners policy to Catherine Gillette and her husband, James, on January 14, 1994. The policy provided personal liability coverage with a $500,000 limit and a $300 deductible. An umbrella endorsement was provided which extended the limits of the policy to $1 million and also furnished additional coverage.

In March of that year, the insured filed suit in Lake County Common Pleas Court in which she joined other residents in the housing development who were attempting to block construction on one parcel in the subdivision which did not comply with local ordinances. The defendant, Dawson Builders, filed an answer and counterclaim alleging the insured's complaint was without cause. Gillette sent a copy of the counterclaim to St. Paul, and the latter notified her it was assigning counsel to represent her on the counterclaim. About six weeks later, the insured was notified that St. Paul would not be defending or indemnifying her against the counterclaim.

This action was then filed by the insureds. The insurance company relied upon the exclusion in its policy for damages resulting from an intentional act of the insured.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of St. Paul, and this was affirmed on appeal. The higher court decided that the insured had intended the loss of at least a partial use of the property owned by Dawson Brothers. As a result, St. Paul was not liable to its insured since its policy excluded intentional acts.

The judgment entered in the trial court was affirmed.

Gillette, Appellant, v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company--No. 95-L-137--Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake Count--August 19, 1996--681 North Eastern Reporter 2d 944.*