In an interesting case in Arizona, Vanguard Insurance Company v. Cantrell v. Allstate Insurance Company, 1973 C.C.H. (automobile) 7684, an insurer was held liable for personal injuries inflicted on a store owner when its insured robbed the store and fired a warning shot to scare the owner. The robber' s aim was bad, and he hit the owner. Because he had not intended to harm the owner, the insured convinced the court that the exclusion under a homeowners policy of intentional injury should not apply.
a. What reasoning might the court have applied to reach this decision?
b. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?