The Cincinnati Insurance Company “Cincinnati” filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that it was under no duty to defend its insured, Magnolia States, Inc., from a claim, which it contends arose from an intentional act. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court ruled against Cincinnati, finding it was obligated to defend and indemnify its insured. In four enumerations of error, Cincinnati challenges this ruling. Finding no error, we affirm. ” ‘On an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we review the evidence de novo and view that evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.’ “ 1 Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2
According to the underlying complaint, Leila Walker began living at Magnolia Estates, which is a personal care home, when she was 80 years old and incapacitated by Alzheimer’s disease. Several months after moving to the facility, Walker was allegedly struck by another resident in the home. Less than two months later, the same resident allegedly “attacked” Walker, knocking her to the ground, causing her to break several bones. Walker’s guardians discovered that the same resident who attacked Walker had been involved in at least 14 “other accidents or incidents which endangered the health, safety and well-being of the other residents and employees.”
