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...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
MINNESOTA<strong>Coverage</strong> Trigger & Number ofOccurrencesIntentional Acts ExclusionsPerpetrator:Non-perpetrator:<strong>Sexual</strong> <strong>Misconduct</strong> ExclusionsIn a case where a priest sexually abused a m<strong>in</strong>or male over an eightyearperiod, the negligent supervision of the priest can constitutean occurrence dur<strong>in</strong>g each policy period <strong>in</strong> which the m<strong>in</strong>or wasmolested. Diocese of W<strong>in</strong>ona v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 89 F.3d1386 (8th Cir. 1996). An “occurrence” is not the time when thewrongful act was committed, but when the victim was actually <strong>in</strong>jured.Redeemer Covenant Church of Brooklyn Park v. Church Mut. Ins. Co..,567 N.W.2d 71 (M<strong>in</strong>n. Ct.App.1997).Intent to <strong>in</strong>jure, for purposes of <strong>in</strong>tentional acts exclusion <strong>in</strong> an<strong>in</strong>surance policy, is <strong>in</strong>ferred as matter of law from acts of sexual abuse.Allstate Ins. Co. v. S.F. 518 N.W. 2d 37 (M<strong>in</strong>n. 1994) (Insured’s act offalse imprisonment of his daughter while he sexually assaulted herwas <strong>in</strong>extricably l<strong>in</strong>ked with his overall <strong>in</strong>tentional plan to sexuallyassault her <strong>and</strong> therefore excluded). This is true even if they actsare committed by a m<strong>in</strong>or who allegedly lacked subjective <strong>in</strong>tent to<strong>in</strong>jure. Ill<strong>in</strong>ois Farmers Ins. Co. v. Judith G., 379 N.W. 2d 638 (M<strong>in</strong>n.Ct. App. 1986); See also Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Todd, 547 N.W.2d696 (M<strong>in</strong>n. 1996). However, the <strong>in</strong>ferred <strong>in</strong>tent rule does not apply tosituations where the perpetrator suffers from mental illness. B.M.B. v.State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 664 N.W.2d 817 (M<strong>in</strong>n. 2003).Where diocesan <strong>and</strong> archdiocesan officials knew priest had previouslymolested m<strong>in</strong>ors, there was no “occurrence” with<strong>in</strong> the terms of the<strong>in</strong>surers’ policies <strong>and</strong> they were not entitled to coverage for the timeafter they learned of the molestation. Diocese of W<strong>in</strong>ona v InterstateFire & Cas. Co., 89 F.3d 1386 (8th Cir. 1996). Where a policy has a“jo<strong>in</strong>t obligations clause” which provided that the “responsibilities, acts<strong>and</strong> failures to act of [an] <strong>in</strong>sured person will be b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g upon another[<strong>in</strong>sured]”, there was no coverage for a negligent supervision claimaris<strong>in</strong>g from a sexual assault. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Steele, 74 F. 3d 878(8th Cir. 1996).M<strong>in</strong>nesota courts <strong>in</strong>terpret sexual misconduct exclusions broadly soas to guard aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>in</strong>demnify<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>in</strong>tentional <strong>and</strong> crim<strong>in</strong>al acts.See D.W.H. v. Steele, 512 N.W.2d 586 (M<strong>in</strong>n. 1994) (No coveragefor sexual assault by m<strong>in</strong>or resident of foster care home on anotherresident); See also State Farm Fire & Cas. v. Williams, 355 N.W.2d421 (M<strong>in</strong>n. 1984) (No coverage for nonconsensual sexual acts); MorkCl<strong>in</strong>ic v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 575 N.W.2d 598 (M<strong>in</strong>n. Ct. App.1998) (Professional liability policy does not cover damages causedby sexual misconduct of a physician); Metropolitan Property <strong>and</strong> Cas.Ins. Co. <strong>and</strong> Affiliates v. Miller, 589 N.W.2d 297 (M<strong>in</strong>n. 1999) (No dutyto defend <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>demnify <strong>in</strong>sured for negligently fail<strong>in</strong>g to warn of orprevent sexual molestation).– 34 –