The applicant insurer sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend its insureds—a minor and his parents—in a civil action arising from a pellet gun shooting.
The minor had been driving a car while his friends shot pellet guns, injuring the plaintiff, and was convicted of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.
The parents were sued for negligent supervision.
The court held that the minor's actions fell within the policy's intentional or criminal act exclusion, relieving the insurer of the duty to defend him.
However, the court found that the negligence claims against the parents were separate and not derivative of the intentional tort, meaning the exclusion clause did not apply to them and the insurer retained a duty to defend the parents.