In
its recent decision in Metropolitan Prop.
& Cas. Ins. Co. v. Briggs, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74885 (D. Conn. May
29, 2013), the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut had
occasion to consider a homeowner’s insurer had a duty to defend its insured in
connection with an underlying suit alleging sexual molestation.
The
insured was alleged to have sexually assaulted a minor, while in the insured’s
home, on repeated occasions during a two-year period. The lawsuit alleged numerous physical and
emotional injuries resulting from these incidents. The insured sought a defense in connection
with the suit from his homeowner’s insurer, Metropolitan Property &
Casualty. The Metropolitan policy
provided coverage for bodily injury resulting from an occurrence. The policy’s definition of bodily injury,
however, expressly carved-out the following categories of harm:
a. any
of the following which are transmitted by you to any other person: disease,
bacteria, parasite, virus or other organism; or
b. the
exposure to any such disease, bacteria, parasite, virus or other organism by
you to any other person; or
c. the
actual, alleged or threatened sexual molestation of a person.
Metropolitan
denied coverage to its insured on the basis that sexual molestation was an
excluded category of bodily harm. The insured, on the other
hand, argued that the definition of bodily injury only excluded coverage for
the “act” of sexual molestation, but did not exclude coverage for the harm
resulting from molestation.
Specifically, the insured argued that “bodily injuries sustained as a
result of sexual molestation should be covered by the policy,” at least for
duty to defend purposes.
The court found the insured’s
reading of the policy unreasonable, concluding that the insured’s strained
interpretation of the policy definition of bodily injury would render moot all
of the carved-out categories of harms.
As the court explained:
In addition
to sexual molestation, the exclusionary provision excludes from the definition
of bodily injury: disease, bacteria, parasite, virus or other organism. If we
extend defendant's reasoning to these other excluded categories, insureds would
be covered for bodily injury as a result of disease, bacteria, parasite,
virus or other organism, despite that disease, bacteria, parasite, virus or
other organism themselves, like sexual molestation, are clearly and explicitly
excluded from coverage. This would render the exclusionary provision virtually
meaningless.
Thus, finding that the only
reasonable interpretation of the policy is that bodily injury resulting from
sexual molestation is not an insured category of loss, the court granted
summary judgment in favor of Metropolitan.
No comments :
Post a Comment