 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Insurance Co.2/28/2000
Sunrise Carpet Industries ("Sunrise"), now known as appellee SCI Liquidating Corp., filed suit in federal court seeking to recover from its insurance carriers, Hartford Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford Fire") and appellant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company ("Hartford Casualty"), the amount of a judgment entered against Sunrise in a Title VII sexual harassment suit filed by three former employees. Hartford Fire had insured Sunrise under a commercial general liability policy ("CGL policy") and Hartford Casualty had issued an umbrella liability policy ("umbrella policy") to Sunrise. Both insurers denied Sunrise's claims for recovery under the policies. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia found that the policies covered the employees' sexual harassment claims against Sunrise and granted summary judgment to appellee.
On appeal, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying Georgia law to the diversity action, reversed the grant of summary judgment on the CGL policy. The appellate court determined that the umbrella policy's "bodily injury " provision did not provide coverage to Sunrise for the underlying sexual harassment, but that the employees' allegation of discrimination under Title VII appeared to be covered by the umbrella policy's definition of "personal injury" and "occurrence." Noting that the umbrella policy expressly excluded from coverage claims made by Sunrise employees for personal injury "arising out of and in the course of their employment[,]" the appellate court found the issue of whether a Title VII sexual harassment claim can be construed as "arising out of and in the course of employment" is unsettled under Georgia law. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit certified to this Court the following question for resolution:
Does sexual harassment or retaliation by a supervisor trigger exclusion sixteen on page three of the umbrella insurance policy in this case, where the insurance policy excludes: "coverage afforded any of [the insured's] employees to `bodily injury ' or `personal injury'...to other employees arising out of and in the course of their employment"?
After reviewing the applicable case law, we find that exclusion sixteen of the umbrella policy does not exclude coverage for Sunrise's claims originating from the sexual harassment suit.
Georgia courts have not construed the terms "in the course of" and "arising out of" employment outside the context of workers' compensation law. However, the same reasoning used in workers' compensation cases has been held to be applicable to general liability cases. General American Life Ins. v. Barth, 167 Ga. App. 605, 606-607 (307 SE2d 113) (1983); IBM v. Bozardt, 156 Ga. App. 794, 799 (275 SE2d 376) (1980) (cert. denied).
In the context of worker's compensation, Georgia courts have distinguished the terms "in the course of" and "arising out of." "In the course of" employment has been defined as relating to the "time, place and circumstances under which injury takes place." Murphy v. ARA Servs. Inc., 164 Ga. App. 859, 861 (598 SE2d 528)(1982); Potts v. UAP-Ga.Ag. Chem., Inc., 270 Ga. 14 (506 SE2d 101)(1998). "Arising out of" has been defined as "a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury." Murphy, supra. Sexual harassment claims have been held not to "arise out of" employment, even though they occur "in the course of" employment. Id.
In order to "arise out of" employment, an injury must be a risk of employment that a reasonable person could have foreseen due to the nature of the work. Murphy, supra. This definition does not include injuries to which an employee woul
Page 1 2 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|