In Crown Tree Service, Inc. v. Atain Specialty Insurance Company, the underlying U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that there was no coverage for a suit against the insured tree service by the owner of land on which the insured mistakenly removed some trees.

The insurer had moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the removal of the wrong trees did not constitute an “occurrence,” which was defined as “an accident.”  Although the insured believed that the trees belonged to a neighbor, the court rejected the insured’s argument that this constituted an accident based on the insured’s subjective belief.  The court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision, despite a finding that there was inconsistent authority among California Court of Appeals cases on the issue.  The Ninth Circuit Court distinguished Karpe v. Great Am. Indem. Co., 190 Cal.App.2d 226, 11 Cal.Rptr. 908, 911–12 (1961), which held that the insured’s mistaken slaughter of someone else’s cow was potentially an accident, and determined that case has been implicitly overruled.  The Ninth Circuit ruled that the California Supreme Court would hold that an insured’s reasonable belief cannot transform an intentional act into an accident.  Further, the court noted that a potential for coverage does not arise due to different interpretations by California courts.