Greg Tanner and Maribel Tanner

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court held that Nationwide failed to establish as a matter of law that the insured intentionally caused the Tanners' injuries, so the intentional‑injury exclusion did not apply and the jury's verdict in favor of the family was affirmed. The Court interpreted “intentionally” in the exclusion as requiring intent to cause the injury, not merely intent to act, and found the “ought to know” language insufficient to bar coverage. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and entered judgment on the jury verdict. Justice Brister dissented, arguing that coverage should be denied under the objective standard.