“No Accident in Self-Defense”: Sixth Circuit Clarifies that Intentional Self-Defense Shootings Are Not “Occurrences” Under Michigan Homeowner Policies

1. Introduction

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Daniele Giannone, Nos. 24-1264/1265 (6th Cir. Aug. 5 2025), addresses the perennial tension in liability insurance between the broad grant of coverage for an “occurrence” and the narrowing effect of intentional-act exclusions. The case arose from a tragic driveway shoot-out in Michigan that left an innocent passenger, Kimberly Mollicone, dead. Her estate sued the shooter, Daniele Giannone, in state court; Giannone, in turn, demanded that his homeowner insurer (State Farm) defend and indemnify him. The District Court, and now the Sixth Circuit, held that State Farm bears no duty to defend or indemnify because the shooting was not an “accident” and therefore not an “occurrence” under Michigan law—even if Giannone plausibly acted in self-defense.

The panel opinion, penned by Judge Ritz and joined by Judges Thapar and Nalbandian (with a separate concurrence by Nalbandian), crystalises a rule of first impression in Michigan: an insured’s intentional, self-defensive use of a firearm that foreseeably endangers others is not an “occurrence” and therefore falls outside the initial grant of coverage, notwithstanding a contractual “self-defense exception” to the policy’s intentional-acts exclusion.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for State Farm.
Key holding: Giannone’s firing at an occupied vehicle was not an “accident” because injury to other occupants was a foreseeable consequence of his intentional act; thus it was not a covered “occurrence.”
The policy’s intentional-acts exclusion—containing an express carve-out for “reasonable force to protect persons or property”—did not revive coverage because the coverage grant was never triggered.
Whether Giannone acted in legally justifiable self-defense is immaterial to coverage: Michigan precedent and policy language align in treating intentional self-defense force as non-accidental when the harm is foreseeable.
Judge Nalbandian concurred, emphasising that other factual patterns (e.g., wayward warning shot harming an unseen bystander) could still constitute an occurrence despite self-defense. The concurrence therefore preserves theoretical room for coverage under the same policy language in rarer circumstances.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Masters, 595 N.W.2d 832 (Mich. 1999)
– Defined “accident” and held that damage from an intentionally set fire, though more extensive than planned, was not accidental because broader harm was foreseeable.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCarn, 645 N.W.2d 20 (Mich. 2002)
– Teen shot friend with gun he believed unloaded. Held accidental because shooter neither intended nor reasonably expected harm.
Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. DiCicco, 443 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. 1989)
– Accidental stabbing during dorm fight where insured claimed he intended only to brandish knife.
Nabozny v. Burkhardt, 606 N.W.2d 639 (Mich. 2000)
– Broken ankle from intentional tripping was foreseeable; not an accident.
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 565 N.W.2d 839 (Mich. 1997)
– Self-defense shooting deemed “intentional” under exclusion.
Auto Club Grp. Ins. Co. v. Burchell, 642 N.W.2d 406 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) & Smorch v. Auto Club, 445 N.W.2d 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)
– Emphasised insurer has no duty to defend where claimed self-defense either establishes intentional act or yields no liability.

The court categorised McCarn and DiCicco as “unintended-act” cases, contrasting them with Masters and Nabozny, where the insured meant to commit the act creating the risk. Giannone fell in the latter camp: he meant to fire a loaded gun at an occupied vehicle; thus the resulting death was foreseeable.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Contractual Structure: Michigan law enforces unambiguous policy language as written. Coverage requires threshold “occurrence” (defined as “accident”). Only after that threshold is met do exclusions and their exceptions matter.
Subjective Foreseeability Test: Michigan uses a subjective standard—would this insured reasonably expect the injury? (McCarn). Aiming and firing at a car makes injury to occupants objectively and subjectively foreseeable.
Self-Defense Argument Rebuffed:
- Even if the policy’s exclusion carve-out potentially re-admits self-defense, it cannot override the prior requirement that the event be accidental.
- Harrington and Burchell signal that Michigan does not treat deliberate, defensive force as accidental when harm is foreseeable.
Concurring Clarification (Nalbandian): Because the policy expressly excepts “reasonable force” from the exclusion, some self-defense scenarios (e.g., stray warning shot) could still be “accidents” and thus “occurrences.” But here the risk was too direct.

3.3 Potential Impact

Predictive Authority on Michigan Law: Although federal, the Sixth Circuit’s Erie prediction will strongly influence Michigan state and federal courts until Michigan’s Supreme Court speaks directly.
Policy Drafting & Marketing: Insurers offering “self-defense exceptions” may see this feature lose much of its marketing value unless underwriting clarifies its narrow practical scope.
Litigation Strategy: Tort defendants hoping to shift defense costs to homeowner policies must now clear two hurdles—showing both self-defense and lack of foreseeability. Plaintiffs may leverage this precedent to keep insurers at bay, isolating defendants financially.
Second Amendment & Castle Doctrine Cases: Individuals invoking defensive-force statutes cannot assume their homeowners policies will respond. This ruling thus intersects criminal doctrine by shaping civil risk allocation.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Occurrence vs. Accident: In insurance, an “occurrence” often equals “accident.” No accident, no coverage. The court asks: Did the insured intend the act? And even if so, was the injury a reasonably foreseeable result?
Intentional-Acts Exclusion: Policies exclude coverage for harm the insured intentionally causes or expects. Some policies (like Giannone’s) carve back coverage for “reasonable force” (self-defense). But that carve-back matters only if the event was accidental in the first place.
Self-Defense in Insurance: Self-defense can excuse tort liability but does not automatically create insurance coverage. If the harm is a predictable result of an intentional act, it is still non-accidental.
Subjective vs. Objective Foreseeability: Michigan asks whether this insured (subjectively) should have foreseen the harm, not whether a generic reasonable person would. Nevertheless, some acts (firing at an occupied car) are so obviously dangerous that foreseeability is inescapable.

5. Conclusion

State Farm v. Giannone firmly establishes that, under Michigan law, foreseeable injury resulting from an insured’s intentional self-defense shooting is not an “occurrence,” and therefore coverage never attaches—regardless of any self-defense exception in the exclusionary section of the policy. The decision prioritises the logical sequence of coverage analysis: grant of coverage → exclusions → exceptions. Practitioners should advise clients that homeowner policies rarely cushion the civil fallout of defensive gun use when bystanders are within the known zone of danger. Future litigants, however, may test the outer boundary envisioned by Judge Nalbandian’s concurrence, where self-defense force is intentionally exerted yet produces an unforeseeable collateral injury. Until then, the Sixth Circuit’s ruling sends a clear message: self-defense does not transform foreseeably lethal gunfire into an accident.