Intentional Act Exclusion - Criminal Act Exclusion
Read The Case: Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dolman (11-30-2007)
Husband was previously been convicted of sexually assaulting a child in Michigan. After husband and wife moved to Ohio, he sexually assaulted another child who was in the couple’s home visiting their daughter. Wife was sued for negligence and sought defense and indemnification from her homeowner’s insurance policy. The trial court concluded that coverage was not afforded.
On appeal, the court found no error. The court first concluded that the negligent conduct attributed to wife constituted an “occurrence” under the policy. The court also found that the “joint obligation” clause created ambiguity. “The context in which the joint obligations clause appears is not conducive to a clear and unambiguous declaration that it is intended as an exclusion to coverage. Absent such clarity of purpose, we must agree with appellants that the clause is ambiguous and it must be construed in favor of coverage.”
Nonetheless, the exclusion for criminal conduct barred coverage. “By the plain language of the exclusions, if bodily injury or property damages result from the intentional or criminal acts of anyone insured under the policy, there is no coverage. Since June Doe's injury is undisputedly the result of the criminal acts of an insured, Alan Dolman, there is no coverage under this policy.” Affirmed.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dolman (13 pages) (Singer) Appeal from the court of common pleas for Lucas County.
No comments:
Post a Comment