ns created a “unreasonable and substantial” risk of her death. The jury’s verdict foreclosed Strand from later arguing that Haeven’s death was an “accident.” Because Strand has no coverage under State Farm’s policy, Dostal cannot recover against State Farm either.The majority avoids this inevitable conclusion by ignoring the law of our state and blindly relying on foreign authorities. It makes no effort to scrutinize the cases it cites and summarily labels them “persuasive.” As a result, the majority interprets Strand’s homeowner’s insurance policy as providing “Reckless Homicide Insurance,” indemnifying policyholders for their decisions to disregard known “unreasonable and substantial risk[s] of death or great bodily harm.” This is absurd.* According to the opinion, as relevant here, criminal recklessness is defined by statute to mean “that the actor creates an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm to another human being and the actor is aware of that risk.” Wis. Stat. § 939.24(1).Merck & Co. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 293 A.3d 535 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div., 2023) (Warlike Action Exclusion)New Jersey appeals court holds that a “Hostile/Warlike Action” exclusion* in commercial property insurance policies did not apply to claimed losses from the “NotPetya” malware/cyberattack which was introduced into the insured’s systems through tax software used in its Ukraine office. The court acknowledged no precedent considering the exclusion and no cases that involve a cyberattack, and interpreted it as requiring the “involvement of military action.” It also referred in part to certain cases construing “similar exclusions” which it said “demonstrate a long and common understanding that terms similar to ‘hostile or warlike action’ by a sovereign power are intended to relate to actions clearly connected to war or, at least, to a military action or objective.” Here, according to the court, the exclusion did not apply even though Russian Federation actors were thought to have orch