It’s refreshing to see that an unambiguous exclusion actual holds up for once. It amazes me that the plaintiff’s attorney tried to get around it by saying that it was the insured’s negligence that caused the children’s injuries, rather than the sexual molestation. If the sexual molestation had not occurred, there would not have been any injury. Thankfully, the court didn’t buy that argument.
What is missing from this article are the ages of the children. A minor could be 17, or could be 5. How old were the other children? This could be sexual curiousity of very young children, imitating unfortunately, what they can regularly see on television, or, it could be criminal behavior from a young man who should know better.
Regardless of the ages, I don’t agree that the courts got this one right. If the policy excludes “‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ . . . [a]rising out of sexual molestation, corporal punishment or physical or mental abuse . . . .,” I don’t understand how this judgement is correct.
Ad, your last paragraph appears a bit contradictory. The court confirmed the exclusion for exactly what you state. This does appear to be a correct conclusion by the court.
ad… Just about all news organizations do not release the ages/names of minors involved as victims or perpetrators of sexual molestation. This is done as a protection for involved individuals.
ok, forgive me, i have read this article 10 times and each of your comments 10 times and i still can’t determine whether the court is saying the insurance should or should not cover the molestation. can someone put it in laymens terms for me?
Read the very first paragragraph. The court ruled that the couple “does not have coverage under their homeowners policy that has a sexual molestation exclusion”.
agreed. While I feel sad for the kids, their ages shouldn’t be a reason to find coverage. In fact, the only reason I can see that this suit went forward at all was because their attorney thought they could find a payout…while that is still possible, the only way for this suit to succeed is to go after the assets of the young man’s parents; no deep pockets here!
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.
It’s refreshing to see that an unambiguous exclusion actual holds up for once. It amazes me that the plaintiff’s attorney tried to get around it by saying that it was the insured’s negligence that caused the children’s injuries, rather than the sexual molestation. If the sexual molestation had not occurred, there would not have been any injury. Thankfully, the court didn’t buy that argument.
What is missing from this article are the ages of the children. A minor could be 17, or could be 5. How old were the other children? This could be sexual curiousity of very young children, imitating unfortunately, what they can regularly see on television, or, it could be criminal behavior from a young man who should know better.
Regardless of the ages, I don’t agree that the courts got this one right. If the policy excludes “‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ . . . [a]rising out of sexual molestation, corporal punishment or physical or mental abuse . . . .,” I don’t understand how this judgement is correct.
Ad, your last paragraph appears a bit contradictory. The court confirmed the exclusion for exactly what you state. This does appear to be a correct conclusion by the court.
Agreed. The Supreme Court overturned a jury decision. Still, I wonder the ages of the children.
ad… Just about all news organizations do not release the ages/names of minors involved as victims or perpetrators of sexual molestation. This is done as a protection for involved individuals.
Agreed. An excellent decision on a very tough case.
ok, forgive me, i have read this article 10 times and each of your comments 10 times and i still can’t determine whether the court is saying the insurance should or should not cover the molestation. can someone put it in laymens terms for me?
Read the very first paragragraph. The court ruled that the couple “does not have coverage under their homeowners policy that has a sexual molestation exclusion”.
The ruling by the Supreme Court overturned the Superior Court ruling.
Superior Court ruled that they had coverage and the Supreme Court reversed that decision, validating the sexual molestation exclusion.
agreed. While I feel sad for the kids, their ages shouldn’t be a reason to find coverage. In fact, the only reason I can see that this suit went forward at all was because their attorney thought they could find a payout…while that is still possible, the only way for this suit to succeed is to go after the assets of the young man’s parents; no deep pockets here!