Wawanese Gen. Ins. v. A.M. CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Mar 7, 2013 No. B242128Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a homeowners insurance policy's sexual molestation exclusion barred coverage for a claim of negligent supervision, regardless of whether the molester was an insured person under the policy.

Issues

Whether a sexual molestation exclusion in a homeowners policy applies when the molester is not an insured person.
Whether damages arising from negligent supervision are excluded when the underlying cause is sexual molestation.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Without qualification, it applies to bodily injury arising out of sexual molestation. Thus, the status of the molester—insured person or stranger to the policy—is irrelevant.”

“The minors’ injuries arose directly from Robert’s sexual molestation of A.M. because the minors would not have suffered damage in the absence of those vile acts.”

“Even if negligent supervision is covered under the policy, the damages are still subject to the sexual molestation exclusion.”

Filed 3/7/13 Wawanese Gen. Ins. v. A.M. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE B242128 COMPANY, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. KC061254)

A.M., a Minor, etc., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert A. Dukes, Judge. Affirmed.

Matison & Margolese, Vana Parker Margolese and Wayne Hunkins for Defendants and Appellants.

Doherty & Catlow and James T. Catlow for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Shelley B. (Shelley), as guardian ad litem for A.M. and V.M. (minors), appeals the declaratory relief judgment in favor of respondent Wawanesa General Insurance Company (Wawanesa) establishing that it has no duty to pay a negligent supervision judgment against Mary M. (Mary) arising out of her ex-husband’s sexual molestation of A.M. We affirm because coverage was barred by a sexual molestation exclusion. FACTS Wawanesa’s Policy Wawanesa issued a homeowners policy (policy) to Mary. In relevant part, it stated: “If a claim is made or a suit is brought against an ‘insured’ for damages because of ‘bodily injury’. . . caused by an ‘occurrence’ to which this coverage applies, [Wawanesa] will: [¶] 1. Pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the ‘insured’ is legally liable.” “Occurrence” was defined to mean “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same harmful conditions, which results, during the policy period, in [¶] a. ‘Bodily injury.’” As an exclusion, the policy provided that Mary’s coverage for personal liability did not apply to “‘bodily injury’ . . . : [¶] . . . [¶] k. Arising out of sexual molestation, corporal punishment, or physical or mental abuse.” The policy period was October 25, 2008, to October 25, 2009. Mary’s ex- husband, Robert M. (Robert), was not an insured. Shelley’s Underlying Action On behalf of the minors, Shelley1 filed an action alleging: A.M. suffers from cerebral palsy, scoliosis and severe displacement of her organs, and she has the mental and emotional functioning of an eight-year old. Her mobility and speech are limited. Robert is the minors’ natural grandfather. Beginning in 2005, when A.M. was 12 years old, Robert sexually molested her on numerous occasions in the trailer behind the

Wawanese Gen. Ins. v. A.M. CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief