court, a creditor must prove the applicability of § 523(a)(6) by a preponderance of the evidence. Grogan, 498 U.S. at 291, 111 S.Ct. 654. Thus, on appeal, we review de novo any legal interpretation of the terms “willful” and “malicious,” but we review only for clear error the bankruptcy court’s finding that a creditor showed a willful and malicious injury by a preponderance of the evidence. “A debtor is responsible for a “will-fur injury when he or she commits an intentional act the purpose of which is to cause injury or which is substantially certain to cause injury.” In re Jennings, 670 F.3d 1329, 1334 (11th Cir.2012) (quoting In re Walker, 48 F.3d 1161, 1165 (11th Cir.1995)) (alteration omitted); see Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61-62,118 S.Ct. 974, 140 L.Ed.2d 90 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Our sister circuits have disagreed about
holding that a mere deliberate or intentional act that causes injury is not sufficient to establish willfulness in the context of 11 usc  523a6 holding that  523a6 requires the actor to intend the injury not just the act that leads to the injury holding section 107a17bs plain language does not require that the actor actually intend death or serious bodily injury an object is a deadly weapon if the actor intends a use of the object in which it would be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury holding that the debtors knowing act of failing to obtain workers compensation insurance so that the employer owed an employee a debt after the employee suffered a workplace injury was not the sort of willful and malicious injury required for nondischargeability under  523a6 because it cannot not be said that the employer intended for the employee to suffer a fall or that there was an unbroken chain of events leading from the employers intentional act to the employees physical injury holding that the word willful in a6 modifies the word injury indicating that nondischargeability takes a deliberate or intentional injury not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury