How have courts interpreted the term "voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger" in accident insurance policies?

Accordingly, in cases in which the policy contains no exclusion for "voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger," courts have held that "Unless the [insured] intended to produce the very result which occurred, the element of danger is both unimportant and immaterial, because ... 'Persons protected by accident insurance may incur consciously hazards which may result in their injury or death without forfeiting the insurance, unless the policy expressly excepts the hazards.' " (Richards v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. (1921) 58 Utah 622, 200 P. 1017, 1025.)