The insured's vehicle was damaged when her daughter, experiencing an acute psychotic episode, drove it across three lanes of traffic and into a tree.
The insurer denied coverage, arguing the daughter's actions were intentional.
The trial judge found the loss was 'accidental' as the daughter lacked conscious control of the vehicle.
The Divisional Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding and further noting that the innocent insured owner was entitled to coverage regardless, as the event was unexpected from her perspective.