context: Yet, appellant argues that because the decedent did not intend to injure Odegard, the intentional act exclusion is not applicable.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 554 N.W.2d 116, 117
citation_a.parenthetical: ruling that an intentional act exclusion to insurance coverage applies only when insured intends to cause harm, not when insured merely intends the act
citation_a.sentence: See German Mut Ins. Co. v. Yeager, 554 N.W.2d 116, 117 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Dec. 23, 1996) (ruling that an intentional act exclusion to insurance coverage applies only when insured intends to cause harm, not when insured merely intends the act); see also Continental W. Ins. Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 177-78, 244 N.W.2d 121, 126 (1976) (inferring intent to injure when the acts were calculated and remorseless, such as intentional preparation to inflict serious injury by carrying loaded guns).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 244 N.W.2d 121, 126
citation_b.parenthetical: inferring intent to injure when the acts were calculated and remorseless, such as intentional preparation to inflict serious injury by carrying loaded guns
citation_b.sentence: See German Mut Ins. Co. v. Yeager, 554 N.W.2d 116, 117 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Dec. 23, 1996) (ruling that an intentional act exclusion to insurance coverage applies only when insured intends to cause harm, not when insured merely intends the act); see also Continental W. Ins. Co. v. Toal, 309 Minn. 169, 177-78, 244 N.W.2d 121, 126 (1976) (inferring intent to injure when the acts were calculated and remorseless, such as intentional preparation to inflict serious injury by carrying loaded guns).