REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J.
*399¶ 1 In this insurance coverage dispute, we consider whether a business-owners liability policy covers a negligent supervision claim arising out of an alleged employee's1 intentional act of physically punching a customer in the face. We hold that this insurance policy does not provide coverage under these circumstances. When the negligent supervision claim pled rests solely on an employee's intentional and unlawful act without any separate basis for a negligence claim against the employer, no coverage exists. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals,2 which *59reversed the circuit court's3 grant of summary judgment in *400favor of Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Auto-Owners) on the coverage issue. The circuit court correctly concluded that there is no coverage under this business liability insurance policy for either the employee's intentional act or the negligent supervision claim against the employer arising solely out of the employee's intentional act.4
I. BACKGROUND
¶ 2 The insurance coverage issue in this case arises from an incident that occurred in July 2009 at a neighborhood convenience store, Burleigh Food Market. Mustafa Mustafa owned and operated the store, and at the time carried a "Businessowners' Liability Policy" with Auto-Owners.5
¶ 3 The provisions in the business liability insurance policy provide, as material:
A. COVERAGES
1. Business Liability We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of "bodily injury" ... to which this *401insurance applies. No other obligation or liability to pay sums or perform acts or services is covered unless explicitly provided for under COVERAGE EXTENSION SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS.
a. This insurance applies only:[6 ]
(1) To "bodily injury" or "property damage":
(a) That occurs during the policy period; and
(b) That is caused by an "occurrence". The "occurrence" must take place in the "coverage territory".
....
B. EXCLUSIONS
1. Applicable to Business Liability Coverage-
This insurance does not apply to:
a. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured. This exclusion does not apply to "bodily injury" resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property.
....
C. WHO IS AN INSURED
1. If you are designated in the Declarations as:
a. An individual, you and your spouse are insureds, but only with respect to the conduct of a business of which you are the sole owner.
*402b. A partnership or joint venture, you are an insured. Your members, your partners and their spouses are *60also insureds, but only with respect to the conduct of your business.
c. An organization other than a partnership or joint venture, you are an insured. Your executive officers and directors are insureds, but only with respect to their duties as your officers or directors. Your stockholders are also insureds, but only with respect to their liability as stockholders.
2. Each of the following is also an insured:
a. Your employees, other than your executive officers, but only for acts within the scope of their employment by you.
....
F. LIABILITY AND MEDICAL EXPENSES DEFINITIONS
....
3. "Bodily injury" means bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by a person, including death resulting from any of these at any time.
....
9. "Occurrence" means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.
(Some formatting altered).
¶ 4 On July 24, 2009, Archie A. Talley walked into Mustafa's store to buy beer. Talley claims that while he was inside the store, Mustafa's security guard, Keith Scott, punched him in the face twice.
*403Talley left the store and called police to report the assault. Talley was taken to the hospital where he was treated for a broken jaw.
¶ 5 On July 17, 2012, Talley filed suit against Mustafa, Keith Scott,7 and Mustafa's insurer, Auto-Owners. The complaint alleged, as material:
• "[Keith Scott] was a[n] employee, security guard and/or customer of the defendant, Mustafa Mustafa."
• "Auto-Owners ... issued a policy of liability insurance wherein it agreed, among other things, to pay up to the limits of its policy any and all damages sustained as a result of negligence in the ownership and/or maintenance of ... Burleigh Food Market."
• As Talley entered the store, "the alleged security guard on the premises, began a verbal altercation with" Talley. Talley, "while walking in the premises was then struck by the security guard twice, fracturing his jaw."
• "The defendants had a duty to properly train and supervise their employees and have a duty to exercise the highest degree of care for the safety of their customers from any harm that might befall them by reason of the actions and/or conduct of their employees."
• "The defendants failed to provide adequate or proper security for their customers, and further said defendants, their agents, employees, or representatives, were the parties who attacked the plaintiff. A videotape viewed by officers of the Milwaukee Police Department from the defendants' own security system, showed the assault."
*404¶ 6 Auto-Owners hired counsel to represent Mustafa. Auto-Owners filed an Answer and conducted discovery, which revealed issues related to coverage. In January 2014, Auto-Owners notified the *61insured that it was defending the case under a reservation of rights letter. In October 2014, Auto-Owners filed a motion to bifurcate the issues of coverage and liability and stay the proceedings on the latter so that the coverage issue could be decided before the liability issues were tried.
¶ 7 The circuit court granted the motion to bifurcate and stayed the trial on the merits to "allow the defendant to seek a declaratory judgment with regard to insurance coverage issues." Mustafa hired his own lawyer to represent him on the coverage issue. In February 2015, Auto-Owners filed its motion for declaratory and summary judgment, asking the circuit court to declare that the insurance policy does not provide coverage, and to grant summary judgment dismissing Auto-Owners from the lawsuit. Auto-Owners asserted that no coverage existed under the policy because: (1) Scott was not Mustafa's employee, and therefore not an insured; (2) even if a factual dispute about Scott's status exists, Mustafa did not believe Scott was an employee; (3) an intentional assault-punching someone in the face-is not an "occurrence" under the insurance policy and excluded by the intentional acts exclusion; (4) there can be no coverage for a negligent supervision claim based on an assault, and no negligent supervision claim exists because Scott was not an employee.
¶ 8 The circuit court held two hearings on the motion and both times concluded the Auto-Owners insurance policy did not provide coverage for Scott or for Mustafa. The circuit court addressed the intentional act at the May 2015 hearing and held:
*405• "So if it's an intentional act, those things are clearly not covered under Wisconsin law. It wasn't an occurrence."
• Attorneys trying to get coverage for an intentional act will "try to shoehorn in [a] negligence claim" to make the intentional act an occurrence. "[T]his is not anything other than an intentional tort. It doesn't fall within the definition of an accident that's covered by the policy."
• Auto-Owners "has aptly pointed out in [its] brief of what an occurrence is under Wisconsin law. And intentional acts are simply not covered because they are not accidents."
• "And that's the ruling of the Court, and there's no coverage."
¶ 9 The circuit court held a second hearing in September 2015 to address whether coverage existed for the negligent supervision claim, which was not discussed at the May 2015 hearing. The circuit court held:
• "Punching somebody is not a negligent act."
• Talley says "Scott used unreasonable force" so the exception in the policy that permits reasonable force does not apply. "[Talley] state[s] unequivocally that it was unreasonable force." "[T]he pure undisputed facts as asserted by the plaintiff with no doubt regardless of employment is that this force was unreasonable."
• Insurance polices do not cover the unreasonable use of force regardless of employment.
• Talley did not have any facts separate from the punch in the face to support the negligent supervision *406claim. "You've got to tell me exactly how some employer is supposed to supervise or train somebody to do what? To commit acts of unreasonable force." "You have to tell this Court just what it is that would make somebody negligently supervised."
• "There's only one act that caused an injury here." "And that's an unreasonable *62force as undisputed by the plaintiff."
¶ 10 The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Auto-Owners and dismissed the insurer from the case. Talley appealed. The court of appeals reversed in a split decision, with Judge Paul F. Reilly in dissent. See Talley v. Mustafa, 2017 WI App 31, 375 Wis. 2d 757, 897 N.W.2d 55. The majority of the court of appeals held that a reasonable insured would expect coverage for the negligent supervision claim alleged in the complaint, and that a disputed issue of material fact existed "as to whether Scott was an employee of Mustafa or otherwise had a special relationship with him such that Mustafa had a duty to train and supervise Scott with due care." Id., ¶ 2. Judge Reilly concluded that no coverage existed under the policy because the intentional "attack/assault" alleged could not be an "occurrence" since it was not an accident. Id., ¶¶ 39-40 (Reilly, J., dissenting).
¶ 11 Auto-Owners petitioned this court for review, and we granted the petition.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 12 "We independently review a grant of summary judgment using the same methodology of the circuit court and the court of appeals."
*407Water Well Sols. Serv. Grp., Inc. v. Consol. Ins. Co., 2016 WI 54, ¶ 11, 369 Wis. 2d 607, 881 N.W.2d 285. "Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id.; Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2) (2015-16).8
¶ 13 Whether to grant "a declaratory judgment is addressed to the circuit court's discretion." Olson v. Farrar, 2012 WI 3, ¶ 24, 338 Wis. 2d 215, 809 N.W.2d 1. When the exercise of discretion turns on a question of law, however, our review is de novo. Id. This case presents an insurance coverage question, which requires the interpretation of an insurance policy; this is a question of law we review de novo. Water Well Sols. Serv. Grp., Inc., 369 Wis. 2d 607, ¶ 12, 881 N.W.2d 285. Therefore, we review the circuit court's grant of declaratory judgment de novo.
III. ANALYSIS
¶ 14 The issue before us is whether the insurance contract between Auto-Owners and Mustafa provides coverage for Talley's negligent supervision claim against Mustafa. Auto-Owners argues that only an "occurrence" triggers coverage and under the facts here, there was no occurrence. It insists that Talley's attempts to bootstrap negligence into the case as a separate tortious act by alleging Mustafa was negligent in training and supervising Scott should be rejected. Auto-Owners further contends that agreement by both parties to the insurance contract-here Mustafa and Auto-Owners-that the policy does not provide coverage should be determinative of the coverage *408question.9 Talley insists *63that his negligent supervision cause of action against Mustafa involves a separate act of negligence that should be covered under the Auto-Owners insurance policy. In an amicus brief, the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance contends that commercial general liability policies do not cover the intentional act of assault and battery, and an injured party cannot obtain coverage by creatively pleading a cause of action for negligent supervision against the insured employer.
¶ 15 This is the first time we have been asked to decide whether coverage exists based on an allegation *409that the employer should have trained the employee not to punch a customer in the face. Courts in other jurisdictions have decided whether an allegation of negligent supervision by an employer can trigger coverage when an employee causes injuries to another by intentionally violating the criminal law. See, e.g., U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Val-Blue Corp., 85 N.Y.2d 821, 623 N.Y.S.2d 834, 647 N.E.2d 1342, 1344 (1995) (holding no coverage for employer based on negligent supervision claim when employee security guard shot a person who entered the nightclub) (applying assault and battery exclusion); Smith v. Animal Urgent Care, Inc., 208 W.Va. 664, 542 S.E.2d 827, 831-32 (2000) (holding no coverage for employer when employee sexually harassed another employee). And, courts are rejecting plaintiffs' attempts to create coverage under commercial general liability policies by simply inserting negligence claims into complaints when employees' intentional acts cause the injuries giving rise to lawsuits. See, e.g., Mt. Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Dobbs, 873 F.Supp.2d 762, 766 (N.D. W. Va. 2012) (agreeing that plaintiff "cannot mischaracterize intentional acts as negligence claims in order to avoid the exclusions contained within the insurance policy").
¶ 16 We reverse the decision of the court of appeals and hold that there is no coverage under the Auto-Owners insurance policy. This policy applies only to bodily injury caused by an "occurrence," which is defined as an accident. Intentionally punching someone in the face two times is not an accident under any definition. Accordingly, the negligent supervision claim against Mustafa can qualify as an occurrence only if facts exist showing that Mustafa's own conduct accidentally caused Talley's injuries. Because there are no facts in Talley's complaint (or in any extrinsic evidence) alleging any specific separate acts by Mustafa *410that caused Talley's injuries, there is no occurrence triggering coverage for the negligent supervision claim. The only specific assertion Talley made in this regard is that Mustafa should have trained Scott not to hit people. We hold that when a negligent supervision claim is based entirely on an allegation that an employer should have trained an employee not to intentionally punch a customer in the face, no coverage exists.
A. Wisconsin Case Law
¶ 17 Before comparing Talley's factual allegations with the language of the *64Auto-Owners insurance policy, we look to several insurance coverage cases, which although not directly on point, provide helpful general principles. This court has decided two coverage cases involving plaintiffs who were punched in the face: (1) Schinner v. Gundrum, 2013 WI 71, 349 Wis. 2d 529, 833 N.W.2d 685 ; and (2) Estate of Sustache v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 87, 311 Wis. 2d 548, 751 N.W.2d 845. In Schinner, the insured held an underage-drinking party. 349 Wis. 2d 529, ¶¶ 17-21, 833 N.W.2d 685. One of the guests suffered serious injury after another guest punched him twice in the face and then kicked him in the head. Id., ¶¶ 2, 24. The injured guest sued the insured and his insurer. Id., ¶ 2. We held that a homeowner's liability policy does not provide coverage when the insured's actions were entirely volitional and a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's bodily injuries. Id., ¶¶ 66-69. We emphasized that in determining whether the facts alleged satisfy the policy's requirement that bodily injury be caused by an accident, the focus was on ascertaining "what is the injury-causing event." Id., ¶ 66. Only if the facts alleged show that the injury-causing event is *411an accident is the policy's initial grant of coverage triggered. Id., ¶¶ 66-69, 81.
¶ 18 Estate of Sustache also involved an underage-drinking party where one guest punched another guest, who fell and sustained fatal injuries. Estate of Sustache, 311 Wis. 2d 548, ¶ 5, 751 N.W.2d 845. The deceased's estate sued the puncher, his parent, and their homeowner's insurer. Id., ¶ 2. The complaint alleged both a negligence claim against the puncher (Count 2); an intentional battery claim against the puncher (Count 3); and a vicarious liability claim against the puncher's parent (Count 4). Id., ¶ 6. This court, after an exhaustive review of cases defining "accident," concluded that the negligence claim did not create coverage because the puncher's "volitional act," which caused the harm, was not "accidental, and, thus, did not give rise to an 'occurrence.' " Id., ¶¶ 30-56 ("One cannot 'accidentally' intentionally cause bodily harm."). We did not discuss the vicarious liability claim because it was dependent upon Count 3, the intentional battery claim. Id., ¶ 6 n.6. Estate of Sustache clarifies that it is the act that caused the harm that is important in determining whether the insurance policy provides coverage. If the act that caused the harm was not an accident, then there was no occurrence to trigger coverage.10
*412¶ 19 There is only one insurance case from this court resolving a coverage dispute involving a claim for negligent supervision against an employer based on the intentional acts of its employees-*65Doyle v. Engelke, 219 Wis. 2d 277, 580 N.W.2d 245 (1998). In Doyle, this court concluded the comprehensive general liability (CGL) policy of Wisconsin Voice of Christian Youth, Inc. (WVCY) covered the plaintiff's claim for negligent supervision against WVCY as the employer of two employees who filed false legal documents to intentionally harass the plaintiff. Id. at 281-82, 580 N.W.2d 245. The plaintiff alleged the employees' actions caused her severe emotional distress and that WVCY was negligent in failing to supervise its employees. Id. at 287, 580 N.W.2d 245. After concluding that the plaintiff's injuries met the insurance policy's definition of "bodily injury," id. at 288, 580 N.W.2d 245, this court addressed "whether WVCY's negligent supervision of its employees constitutes an 'event' for coverage purposes," id. at 289, 580 N.W.2d 245. The CGL policy insuring WVCY covered bodily injury "caused by an event," and "event" was defined as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions." Id. at 287-89, 580 N.W.2d 245. The Doyle court concluded that the plaintiff alleged an "event" that led *413to her damages because both "accident" and "negligence" have definitions that "center on an unintentional occurrence leading to undesirable results," and a reasonable insured would expect that an "event" includes negligent acts. Id. at 289-90, 580 N.W.2d 245. Concluding that an "event" existed, this court then turned to the policy's intentional act exclusion to see if it negated coverage. Id. at 290-91, 580 N.W.2d 245. The intentional acts exclusion in the policy said the insurer would not "cover bodily injury or property damage that's expected or intended by the protected person." Id. at 290, 580 N.W.2d 245. Although there was no dispute that this exclusion prevented WVCY's employees from being covered by the policy, this court held that because the negligent supervision claim did not allege that WVCY itself acted intentionally, coverage was trigged by the policy. Id. at 291-92, 580 N.W.2d 245.
¶ 20 It is unclear from Doyle whether the plaintiff alleged specific separate acts of negligence by WVCY that caused the plaintiff's injuries beyond the general allegation of negligent supervision. There is no analysis of alleged specific acts by WVCY being compared to the insurance policy's language. Instead, the Doyle court relied on similar definitions of accident and negligence, together with a general allegation of negligent supervision, to discern the existence of an "event." This is problematic because in determining whether an event or an occurrence took place, courts "must focus on the incident or injury that gives rise to the claim, not the plaintiff's theory of liability." Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 86, ¶ 36, 311 Wis. 2d 492, 753 N.W.2d 448 (noting that insurance policies insure against occurrences, not "theories of liability" (citations and quoted source omitted)); see also *414Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Girl, Inc., 2004 WI 2, ¶¶ 5, 37-49, 268 Wis. 2d 16, 673 N.W.2d 65 (focusing on the cause of the property damage in determining whether there was an occurrence for insurance coverage). Like in Schinner and Estate of Sustache, our analysis in Doyle should have focused on whether the specific factual allegations against WVCY constituted the injury-causing event. In other words, a plaintiff cannot simply add the word "negligence" to a complaint and expect that a supervision claim against an employer will create an accident out of the employee's intentional assault and battery. A court must look to see whether the plaintiff alleges specific facts that show the bodily injury was caused by an occurrence-an accident. We did not do that in Doyle. We said that because the plaintiff *66alleged negligent supervision against the employer and negligence means accident, an "event" occurred for purposes of coverage. Doyle, 219 Wis. 2d at 289-90, 580 N.W.2d 245.
¶ 21 Doyle also contains two legally incorrect statements. Paragraph 37 says "insurance coverage is based solely on the policy as applied to the allegations within the plaintiff's complaint" and footnote 3 says coverage determinations must be confined "to the four corners of the complaint." Id. at 284, n.3, 580 N.W.2d 245. Although Doyle speaks in terms of coverage, the "four corners" rule applies solely to analyzing an insurer's duty to defend. See Olson, 338 Wis. 2d 215, ¶¶ 33-39, 809 N.W.2d 1 (four corners rule applies in duty to defend cases). When an insurer follows one of the judicially-preferred approaches and moves to bifurcate the coverage determination from a trial on the merits, courts may look beyond the four corners of the complaint to determine whether the claims alleged are covered by the insurance policy. Id.
*415¶ 22 The incorrect statements this court made in Doyle, which have already been impliedly overruled by this court's multiple insurance cases11 decided since Doyle, are now explicitly overruled. Further, we clarify that our analysis on the negligent supervision coverage claim fell short in Doyle. In analyzing whether a claim of negligent supervision is covered under an insurance policy, courts must compare the specific facts alleged against the employer with the language of the insurance policy to ascertain whether the incident or injury that gave rise to the claim satisfies the definition of occurrence.
¶ 23 Having set forth the existing law, we now apply it to the particular facts and insurance policy in the matter before us.
B. Whether the Auto-Owners Insurance Policy Provides Coverage
¶ 24 The issue presented here is limited to whether the Auto-Owners insurance policy provides coverage for the negligent supervision claim Talley asserts against Mustafa. Our focus is on coverage, not on the duty to defend, because Auto-Owners followed a judicially-preferred approach when it received Talley's complaint: it provided an initial defense to its insured and filed a motion to bifurcate the coverage issue from the liability trial. See Water Well Sols. Serv. Grp., Inc., 369 Wis. 2d 607, ¶ 27, 881 N.W.2d 285.
¶ 25 To determine if coverage exists, we first compare the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint, as supplemented by the extrinsic evidence submitted, *416with the language of the policy to decide whether the facts allege an occurrence. See Estate of Sustache, 311 Wis. 2d 548, ¶¶ 30-31, 751 N.W.2d 845. If there is no occurrence, our analysis ends because no coverage exists; the claims do not fall within the initial grant of coverage. Id., ¶¶ 57-58. If we conclude the facts allege an occurrence, we next examine the exclusions in the policy to determine whether any exclusion precludes coverage. Id., ¶ 57. Finally, if an exclusion applies, we examine the policy to see if any exceptions to the applicable exclusion restore coverage. See Wis. Pharmacal Co., LLC v. Neb. Cultures of Cal., Inc., 2016 WI 14, ¶ 22, 367 Wis. 2d 221, 876 N.W.2d 72. "[W]e must not rewrite the insurance policy to bind an insurer to a risk [ ] the insurer did not contemplate and for which it has not been paid." Everson v. Lorenz, 2005 WI 51, ¶ 14, 280 Wis. 2d 1, 695 N.W.2d 298.
¶ 26 The Auto-Owners insurance policy applies only to bodily injury "caused by an *67'occurrence' " and " '[o]ccurrence' means an accident." Accident is not defined in the policy, but no one in this matter contends that Scott's act of intentionally punching Talley in the face was an accident. One cannot "accidentally" intentionally punch someone in the face. Talley does not argue otherwise. Rather, he insists that Mustafa negligently trained and supervised Scott by failing to tell him not to hit people. Talley asserts that Mustafa's conduct is an occurrence separate and distinct from Scott's intentional act. We disagree.
¶ 27 Our focus is " 'on the incident or injury that gives rise to the claim, not the plaintiff's theory of liability.' " Stuart, 311 Wis. 2d 492, ¶ 36, 753 N.W.2d 448 (quoted source omitted). Our analysis focuses on the "injury-causing event." Schinner, 349 Wis. 2d 529, ¶ 66, 833 N.W.2d 685. In other words, we consider whether Talley alleged facts *417against Mustafa that show Talley's bodily injury was caused by an accident, which would be an "occurrence" triggering insurance coverage. Simply inserting the word "negligence" into a complaint does not create coverage if the complaint fails to allege specific facts to establish an occurrence.
¶ 28 Talley's complaint alleges only that the "defendants" were negligent in failing to "train and supervise their employees" and "failed to provide adequate or proper security" because the "employees" "were the parties who attacked the plaintiff." Talley's extrinsic evidence adds only that Mustafa's act of "not telling Mr. Scott to not hit anyone" should trigger coverage.12 In other words, the occurrence, in Talley's view, is Mustafa's failure to tell Scott not to punch customers in the face. Typically, an employee's training and subsequent supervision does not include a segment on how to refrain from punching others because the assault and battery criminal statutes already prohibit such conduct. See Wis. Stat. §§ 940.19 -.208.
¶ 29 Talley's allegations asserting negligent supervision are entirely dependent upon the intentional act giving rise to the injury-the punching. The factual allegations say the punching caused Talley's injury. It is the only injury-causing event. There are no factual allegations that Mustafa knew or should have known that Scott was likely to punch customers in the face. There are no facts alleging that Mustafa himself acted in a specific way that led Scott to commit the act causing the injury. Because Talley does not present any separate basis for Mustafa's negligence-any independent *418act by Mustafa that accidentally caused Talley's injury-no coverage exists.
¶ 30 This is not to say that a negligent supervision claim will never trigger insurance coverage. When a plaintiff alleges facts independent from the intentional act giving rise to the injury, coverage may exist. For example, in QBE Ins. Corp. v. M & S Landis Corp., 915 A.2d 1222 (Pa. Super. 2007), a court held the insurer had the duty to defend (and indemnify if the jury found in plaintiff's favor) its insured-Fat Daddy's Night Club-on the plaintiff's claim that the employer was negligent in failing to properly train its bouncer employees on how to safely evict unruly patrons from the club and how to render first aid. Id., ¶¶ 11-15. After removing a patron from the nightclub, the bouncers threw the man on the ground, forced him to lay face down and laid on top of him for so long that the man suffocated. Id., ¶ 11. The QBE court identified specific factual allegations in the complaint of negligence against the nightclub, separate from the *68bouncers' intentional acts, sufficient to conclude that the negligence claims "can be considered an 'accident' triggering an occurrence under [the] policy." Id., ¶ 12. The specific factual allegations separate from the bouncers' intentional acts included the failure of the nightclub to properly teach the bouncers how to eject patrons, use the correct amount of restraint, and render first aid. Id., ¶¶ 11-12. That is, had the employer in QBE taught its bouncers how to safely restrain and remove a patron and how to render first aid, the man in QBE may not have been injured. See also Vandenberg v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 2001 WI 85, 244 Wis. 2d 802, 628 N.W.2d 876 (holding coverage existed for daycare provider's *419negligent supervision of her child, who placed pillows on top of a sleeping infant that caused infant to suffocate).
C. Courts Reject Plaintiffs' Attempts at Creative Pleading
¶ 31 In contrast, when the injury giving rise to the suit is caused by an employee intentionally choosing to commit a criminal act, courts reject a plaintiff's attempt to secure coverage by alleging negligence against an employer. For example, in Smith v. Animal Urgent Care, 542 S.E.2d at 828, the plaintiff filed suit against Animal Urgent Care and one of its veterinarians, Dr. Karl E. Yurko. The plaintiff alleged that Yurko sexually harassed her, causing her injury. Id. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that including a negligence claim against Animal Urgent Care in the complaint "does not alter the essence of the claim for purposes of determining the availability of insurance coverage. Sexual harassment, and its inherently non-accidental nature, remain the crux of the case regardless of whether negligence is alleged against [the employer]." Id. at 832. See also United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Entm't Grp., Inc., 945 F.2d 210, 211, 214 (7th Cir. 1991) (holding no coverage for plaintiff's claim alleging negligence against theatre owner for injuries caused by sexual assault in theatre washroom) (applying the policy's assault and battery exclusion); U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co., 623 N.Y.S.2d 834, 647 N.E.2d at 1344 (holding no coverage for plaintiff's claim alleging negligent supervision against nightclub for injuries caused when nightclub's security guard shot plaintiff) (applying the policy's assault and battery exclusion);
*420Terra Nova Ins. Co. v. Thee Kandy Store, Inc., 679 F.Supp. 476, 478 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (holding no coverage for plaintiff's claim that employer failed to prevent assault and battery committed by employee) (applying the policy's assault and battery exclusion); Terra Nova Ins. Co. v. N.C. Ted, Inc., 715 F.Supp. 688, 691-92 (E.D. Pa. 1989) (holding no coverage for negligence where cause of injury was assault and battery, which is not an accident and therefore not an occurrence).
¶ 32 Merely inserting negligence into a complaint that alleges only injuries caused by an intentional assault and battery will not create an occurrence (defined as an accident) under an insurance policy. See Mt. Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Dobbs, 873 F.Supp.2d at 765-66 (explaining that "[a]lthough the word 'negligently' is present, the complaint describes an intentional assault"; thus, no coverage exists on plaintiff's complaint alleging negligence against business whose agents caused injuries when they "hit, kicked, and punched" plaintiff).
¶ 33 A plaintiff's attempt to reconfigure a claim of assault and battery as a claim of negligence will not transform an intentional act into an accidental one. See United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Tunnel, Inc., 988 F.2d 351, 352-55 (2d Cir. 1993) (holding no coverage where plaintiff alleged a nightclub's *69negligent hiring of a bouncer caused injuries when the bouncer's intentional assault on the plaintiff fractured his skull and put him in a coma for two weeks; plaintiff's amending of complaint pretending an assault and battery never occurred will not change the substance of the claim). Talley's complaint asserts an intentional assault and battery. He fails to provide any specific facts separate *421from the assault and battery to show any accidental actions by Mustafa that caused Talley's broken jaw. Accordingly, there is no coverage for the negligent supervision claim under Auto-Owners policy.
D. Whether Mustafa's Belief Regarding Coverage Controls
¶ 34 From the beginning, Mustafa has taken the position that there is no insurance coverage for the negligent supervision claim against him. Auto-Owners asserts that when the insured and insurer agree that an insurance policy does not provide coverage, their agreement controls the coverage determination. In other words, the injured party, who is not a party to the insurance contract, should not be able to fight for coverage when the insured concedes none exists.
¶ 35 The scenario Auto-Owners posits is not common. An insured is often the party fighting for insurance coverage. And, as Auto-Owners points out, insurance policies are contracts to which courts apply the same rules of law applicable to other contracts. See Garriguenc v. Love, 67 Wis. 2d 130, 134-35, 226 N.W.2d 414 (1975). We interpret the language of an insurance contract from the position of a reasonable person in the position of the insured. Id. Auto-Owners asks us to hold that if the parties to the contract agree as to its interpretation, neither the injured party nor the court should be able to disregard that agreement.
¶ 36 We reject the bright-line rule Auto-Owners requests. While an insured's belief that no coverage exists may be considered, courts follow established principles of law applicable to insurance coverage *422determinations. These settled rules are objective, based on the insurance policy's language compared to the specific factual allegations, and applied on a case-by-case basis. See K.A.G. by Carson v. Stanford, 148 Wis. 2d 158, 165, 434 N.W.2d 790 (Ct. App. 1988). Unlike coverage determinations based on an insured's subjective understanding of an insurance contract, the rules courts apply in interpreting a policy's provisions are not subject to unknown pressures, lack of knowledge, or manipulation. A neutral and detached court of law, tasked with determining whether an insurance policy provides coverage, engages in an objective application of the policy terms and conditions to the facts of the case, ensuring consistent coverage determinations grounded in the text of the insurance contract. Leaving the coverage determination to an insured-who may be unfamiliar with the law or have personal reasons for taking the position that the insurance policy does not provide coverage-would replace the rule of law with subjective and therefore unpredictable outcomes. Accordingly, we decline to adopt a rule that would allow the insured's assessment of coverage to supplant the actual words of the insurance policy.
IV. CONCLUSION
¶ 37 The court of appeals erred in reversing the circuit court's grant of summary and declaratory judgment. The circuit court correctly concluded that the Auto-Owners insurance policy does not provide coverage to Mustafa for Talley's claim of negligent supervision. In comparing Talley's complaint, along with the extrinsic evidence obtained through discovery, *70to the language of the policy, we conclude that this policy does not provide coverage under these circumstances. The policy covers bodily injury caused by an occurrence, *423which is defined as an accident. There is no dispute that Scott acted intentionally when he punched Talley in the face.13 The punching was not an accident and it is the punching that caused Talley's injuries. Talley failed to allege specific acts by Mustafa that caused Talley's injuries. When a negligent supervision claim rests solely on an employee's intentional act of assault and battery without any separate basis for a negligence claim against the employer, no coverage exists.
¶ 38 In addition, we reject Auto-Owners' request that we allow an insured's agreement with its insurer to control the coverage determination. Instead, we continue to base coverage determinations on the language of insurance contracts, applying established principles of law to the facts presented in each case.
By the Court. -The decision of the court of appeals is reversed.