The United States District Court for the Southern District of California has concluded that an insurer did not have any duty to defend a woman against claims arising from her husband’s alleged sexual molestation of their granddaughters. ( Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co. 2007 WL 1672134)
Facts
David Combs repeatedly molested his young granddaughters, Alison and Cecilia, over the course of their childhood. Mr. Combs’ wife, Myriam Combs, allegedly stood by while the molestations occurred, either unaware of the conduct or unwilling to stop it.
Alison and Cecilia repressed memories of the molestation until adulthood. At that point, they filed suit against their grandfather, Mr. Combs, for sexual assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and their grandmother, Mrs. Combs, for negligence.
During the years of abuse, Mr. and Mrs. Combs were named insureds on four policies issued by Allstate Insurance Company: a homeowner’s policy, a landlord’s policy, a personal umbrella policy and an automobile policy. Mrs. Combs tendered defense of the molestation lawsuit to Allstate, but Allstate declined to defend her in the suit. Thereafter, Mrs. Comb entered into a settlement with Alison and Cecilia pursuant to which Mrs. Combs assigned all of her rights against Allstate to Alison and Cecilia.
Alison and Cecilia, armed with the assignment, then filed suit against Allstate for failing to defend their grandmother, Mrs. Combs, in the underlying action. Allstate moved to dismiss, asserting that the granddaughters’ claims against Mrs. Combs in the underlying action were not potentially covered under any of the Allstate policies.
Holding
The United States District Court in San Diego held that Alison’s and Cecilia’s claims against their grandmother, Mrs. Combs, were not potentially covered under the Allstate policies and, thus, Allstate had no duty to defend Mrs. Combs in the underlying action. San Diego lawyers and attorneys directory.
The court reasoned that the Allstate homeowner’s, landlord’s and umbrella policies all barred coverage for bodily injury or personal injury arising out of intentional or criminal acts of an insured person. Since Mrs. Comb’s alleged liability in the underlying action arose from the intentional acts (i.e., sexual molestation) by another insured person (i.e., Mr. Combs), Mrs. Comb’s alleged liability was barred from coverage under the Allstate homeowner’s, landlord’s and umbrella policies.Thus, Allstate had no duty to defend Mrs. Combs under those three policies.
As for the Allstate auto policy, it only covered Mrs. Combs for liability “arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use” of an insured vehicle. Although it was alleged in the underlying action that Mrs. Combs had negligently entrusted the family car vehicle to Mr. Combs who then used the car as a place to molest his granddaughters, Mrs. Combs’ alleged liability could not be said to have “arisen out of” Mr. Combs’ use of the car. Rather, according to the court, Mr. Combs’ use of the car was a “circumstance accompanying” the sexual molestations, not a “predominant cause of or substantial factor in” causing the granddaughters’ injuries.
Because there was no potential for coverage under the policies, the policies did not require Allstate to defend Mrs. Combs in the underlying action brought by her granddaughters.
Comment
This case is generally consistent with other California cases involving similar policy language. Assuming the policy contains appropriate wording, an insurer will usually have no duty to defend an insured against claims that he or she negligently facilitated another insured’s intentional act of sexual molestation.