intentional misconduct of the insured.’ ” Dfs Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Part. Summ. J., at 5 (quoting All Risk Insurance—Design Flaws, 41 A.L.R. 4th 1096 (1985)). Nevertheless, despite this glaring contradiction in Howard County’s own argument, there is essentially no disagreement among the parties that for a loss to be covered under an all risks policy, the loss must be unplanned and unintentional, and not in the insured’s foresight or expectation. Correspondingly, while it is true that Maryland’s appellate courts have not addressed the fortuity requirement in the context of an all-risks policy, they have construed the term “accident” from the perspective of an unplanned and unintentional loss. See, e.g., Sheets v. Brethren Mut. Ins. Co., 342 Md. 634, 652, 679 A.2d 540, 548 (1996) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Harris
holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident holding that an accident under a liability insurance policy occurs when the resulting damage was an event that takes place without the insureds foresight or expectation  holding that standard occurrencebased policy was intended to provide coverage when damage or injury    occurs during the policy period holding cause of action accrues when some compensable damage occurs holding that insureds widow as beneficiary of life insurance policy had standing as an injured person under the insurance code