I don’t think the court got this one right. I think that b/c the babysitter was clearly running a business out of her home, she should have had a business policy in place that clearly includes molestatin and misconduct. Why should a homeowners policy coverage business exposures?
I think we can all agree that the average teenage babysitter does not need business insurance. If they are sitting at that level they would have to be state certified (most states). The court finally got this one right by allowing the exclusion. Home insurers should not have to pay for molestation.
I too would like to know the ages of the children involved. That does make a huge difference in what this whole thing looks like.
That teenager does not need a business policy as it is not a business. Secondly, most (not going to say all) day care policies will have an exclusion for “sexual molestation” as it is an intentional act. Can’t say, “oops, I accidentally molested that child.” Even if the kid had to have a policy, it still would not be covered.
I may have assumed that the mother was doing the babysitting out of her home and her son did the molestation. Eitherway, some molestation coverage is available and would exclude the insured and her/his spouse but most likely would include their child of the act, at least the duty to defend. United States Lfiability Insurance Group Form #L-284 COM-7/04.
If she had the coverage, it should pay. Since she did not have the coverage for this exposure (just like not having flood or auto coverage) there is no coverage. The court did get this right as the bare bones HO excludes coverage. Unless she had the USLI coverage or something comparable, she and her husband have to foot the bill with no transfer of risk to the insurance company.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I don’t think the court got this one right. I think that b/c the babysitter was clearly running a business out of her home, she should have had a business policy in place that clearly includes molestatin and misconduct. Why should a homeowners policy coverage business exposures?
I think we can all agree that the average teenage babysitter does not need business insurance. If they are sitting at that level they would have to be state certified (most states). The court finally got this one right by allowing the exclusion. Home insurers should not have to pay for molestation.
I too would like to know the ages of the children involved. That does make a huge difference in what this whole thing looks like.
The NH Supreme Court reveresed the lower Court ruling and upheld the HO exclusion. So, the Supreme Court got it right.
Dawn,
That teenager does not need a business policy as it is not a business. Secondly, most (not going to say all) day care policies will have an exclusion for “sexual molestation” as it is an intentional act. Can’t say, “oops, I accidentally molested that child.” Even if the kid had to have a policy, it still would not be covered.
I may have assumed that the mother was doing the babysitting out of her home and her son did the molestation. Eitherway, some molestation coverage is available and would exclude the insured and her/his spouse but most likely would include their child of the act, at least the duty to defend. United States Lfiability Insurance Group Form #L-284 COM-7/04.
If she had the coverage, it should pay. Since she did not have the coverage for this exposure (just like not having flood or auto coverage) there is no coverage. The court did get this right as the bare bones HO excludes coverage. Unless she had the USLI coverage or something comparable, she and her husband have to foot the bill with no transfer of risk to the insurance company.