Insurance policies do not cover injury intentionally caused by the insured. Coverage of such claims would be antithetical to the basic principle of insurance. This principle is typically expressed in an exclusion for injury expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured. The general rule in Pennsylvania is that an insured will be found to have intentionally caused harm only where it is alleged that the harm was intentionally caused (for purposes of the duty to defend) or where it is proven that the insured subjectively intended to cause the harm, or similar harm (for purposes of the duty to indemnify), see Eisenman v. Hornberger, 264 A.2d 673, 673 (Pa. 1970); and United Services Automobile v. Elitzky, 517 A.2d 982, (Pa. Super.1986). There is an exception to this general rule known as the inferred intent rule or inferred intent doctrine.

The inferred intent rule was first considered under Pennsylvania law by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Wiley v. State Farm Fire & Casualty, 995 F.2d 457, 458 (3d Cir. 1993). In Wiley, the court was called on to predict whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would obligate an insurer under homeowners’ insurance policy to cover an insured for claims that he sexually molested his minor niece. The complaint against the insured alleged that the insured sexually molested his 13-year-old niece while she was visiting his home. The insured was an alcoholic and was intoxicated during the episodes of molestation.