Intentional acts are typically excluded on liability policies and many states have laws precluding coverage from applying to an intentional act. Employment practices liability policies, for example, contain exclusions for intentional acts even though it may be an action otherwise covered by the policy. If an allegation of discrimination is proven to be true and to have been intentional, the individual perpetrator would not be covered by the policy. Most policies, however, will still afford coverage and not impute the intentional conduct to other insureds.
In a case currently in CA appellate court, the court is weighing judgment concerning employee retaliation allegations in which the lower court applied a CA statute prohibiting indemnification of losses caused by willful acts. In 2016, a jury found that an employer intentionally retaliated against its employees in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The insurer subsequently denied coverage citing California Insurance Code Section 533, which says that insurers are not liable for willfully caused losses by insureds.
The distinction with intentional acts is something to be aware of since many incorrectly assume coverage will always apply for a claim explicitly granted coverage for under a particular liability policy. It can also play a role in contract negotiations knowing that certain acts may not be supported by insurance coverage.