should apply only to first-party insurance or only to third-party liability insurance.7 Russ and Segalla, , § 102:8 at 20. Similarly, we can find no valid reason for distinguishing between the two types of policies with regard to the known loss doctrine. One who knows of a loss or a liability, whether as a first or third party, should not be allowed to insure against either. Therefore, the known loss doctrine is applicable to third-party liability insurance policies such as those at issue.
Nevertheless, Housewares insists that the element of fortuity is sufficiently addressed by the explicit language of its insurance policies, and therefore, the known loss doctrine is inapplicable in the present case. Apparently, the policies in question limit coverage to “occurrences” which are neither “expected” nor “intended” by the policyholder.8
An occurrence is expected when the insured acted although he was aware that the harm caused by his action was practically certain to occur. , , 557 N.E.2d at 1086 (quoting (1989) Ind.App., 537 N.E.2d 510, 512). In the same context, our Supreme Court has defined intentional as “the volitional performance of an act with an intent to cause injury, although not necessarily the precise injury or severity of damage that in fact occurs.” (1990) Ind., 551 N.E.2d 844, 845 (quoting (1975) 165 Ind.App. 445, 448, 332 N.E.2d 240, 242, ).
7 First-party insurance is “[i]nsurance which applies to the insured’s own property or person.” Black’s Law Dictionary 722 (5th ed. 1979). In contrast, liability insurance “indemnifies against liability on account of injuries to the person or property of another.” . at 723.
8 Again, while both parties seem to agree that the policies in question contained such language, Appellant’s Brief contains no citation to the policies in the record; nor could we find a copy of the policies in the record.