Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims
Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims
Coverage and Liability Issues in Sexual Misconduct Claims
- No tags were found...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
MASSACHUSETTS<strong>Coverage</strong> Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:<strong>Sexual</strong> <strong>Misconduct</strong> ExclusionsAllegations of numerous acts of child abuse <strong>and</strong> negligence by variousdefendants at different locations precluded a f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g that the <strong>in</strong>juriesresulted from a s<strong>in</strong>gle occurrence. Worcester Ins. Co. v. Fells AcresDay Sch. Inc., 558 N.E.2d 958 (Mass. 1990).The Massachusetts courts have precluded coverage for claims aga<strong>in</strong>st<strong>in</strong>sureds who sexually molested m<strong>in</strong>ors, f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g that an <strong>in</strong>tent to <strong>in</strong>juremay be <strong>in</strong>ferred as a matter of law from acts of child molestation.See Worcester Ins. Co. v. Fells Acres Day Sch. Inc., 558 N.E.2d 958(Mass. 1990) (Also hold<strong>in</strong>g associated <strong>in</strong>juries to abused children’sparents were not precluded by exclusion for expected or <strong>in</strong>tended<strong>in</strong>jury); Doe v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 667 N.E.2d 1149 (Mass. 1996);United Serv. Automobile Assoc. v. Doe, 792 N.E.2d 708 (Mass. App.Ct. 2003). Intentional acts exclusions have also been upheld topreclude coverage for claims of sexual harassment <strong>and</strong> battery aga<strong>in</strong>stadults. Timpson v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 669 N.E.2d 1092 (Mass.Ct. App. 1996); Terrio v. McDonough, 450 N.E.2d 190 (Mass. Ct. App.1983).Intentional acts exclusion did not preclude coverage for negligenceclaims aga<strong>in</strong>st adoptive parents <strong>in</strong> whose home m<strong>in</strong>ors were sexuallyabused by adopted child. Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. John Doe, 1994WL 879836 (Mass. Super. Ct. May 4, 1994).<strong>Sexual</strong> misconduct exclusions have been upheld to preclude coverageto perpetrators <strong>and</strong> to potentially liable third parties <strong>and</strong> are notaga<strong>in</strong>st public policy. See Frankl<strong>in</strong> v. Professional Risk ManagementServices, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 71 (D. Mass. 1997) (“Undue Familiarity”clause barred coverage for patient’s claims of sexual misconductaga<strong>in</strong>st psychiatrist); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Frederick Bromberg,1999 WL 744022 (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug. 2, 1999) (<strong>Sexual</strong> misconductexclusion precluded coverage for claims of sexual molestationby <strong>in</strong>sured); Hillcrest Educational Centers, Inc. v. Cont<strong>in</strong>ental Ins.Co., 1995 WL 809961 (Mass. Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 1995) (<strong>Sexual</strong>misconduct exclusion barred coverage for claim aga<strong>in</strong>st residentialeducational facility for claims aris<strong>in</strong>g out of rape of a student by aformer employee.)– 30 –