California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Meyer v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 233 Cal.App.2d 321, 43 Cal.Rptr. 542 (Cal. App. 1965):
While this presumption is evidence to establish liability where intent is a necessary element of the crime or wrong it has no bearing on the question of whether the consequences of an intentional act were unexpected and, therefore, accidental within the meaning of a contract of insurance. Here, intent to trespass was an essential element of the cause of action upon which the municipal court judgment is based (Gallin v. Poulou, 140 Cal.App.2d 638, 645, 295 P.2d 958), and the presumption was, in the municipal court action, evidence to uphold the finding of intent to trespass. Intent to cause damage was not, however, an element of the tort and, as we have pointed out, the trespasser was liable for such damage as he caused even though that damage was not intended or foreseen by him.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.