Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
March 24, 2010

COA Opinion: Insurance policy's sexual molestation exclusion bars coverage regardless of intent to injure

On March 23, 2010, the Court of Appeals published its earlier January opinion in Doe v. Citizens Insurance Company, No. 288776. In this case, a plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the homeowners' insurance policy of a party alleged to be liable for a sexual assault had to defend and indemnify that party in plaintiff's civil suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's determination that the insurance policy's sexual molestation exclusion barred coverage for such claims. The plaintiff argued that, in this case, the sexual assault was allegedly committed by a minor, and thus there was no intent to injure. The Court of Appeals found that while intent to injure is a relevant element of some policy exclusions, the sexual molestation exclusion explicitly excludes any injury arising out of a sexual assault, regardless of whether there was an intent to injure.

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.



+ -