Supreme Court would conclude that such negligence and negligent misrepresentation does not constitute an “accident.” While negligence often leads to an accident, negligent behavior is not itself an “accident.” See Couch on Insurance § 126:26 (3d ed.) (“The word ‘accident’ implies a misfortune with concomitant damage to a victim, and not to the negligence which eventually results in that misfortune.”). This interpretation is consistent with the generally accepted definition of an “accident” set out by the Kansas Supreme Court. Negligent conduct itself is not an undesigned, sudden, or unexpected event of an afflictive or unfortunate character, but often the cause of such an event. See Neale Construction Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 199 F.2d 591, 592 (10th Cir.1952) (<HOLDING>); ERA Franchise Systems, Inc. v. Northern Ins.
holding that the word sudden in a pollutionexclusion clause in a general liability insurance policy was ambiguous ie was capable of more than one reasonable interpretation and therefore would be interpreted in favor of the insured to mean unexpected and unintended holding that probation does not constitute a sentence holding that a cgl policy such as the one at issue here does not insure against claims for defective or negligent workmanship or construction because defective workmanship does not constitute an accident and therefore claims for defective or negligent workmanship do not constitute an occurrence under the policy holding that the phrase sudden and accidental is not a synonym for unexpected and unintended and that the discharge of coal dust over an eight year period was not sudden holding that negligent construction is not sudden unexpected or unanticipated and does not constitute an accident