 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Gagnon8/23/2001
The issue in this case is whether Tomato Café's (café) general comprehensive liability insurance policy covers a claim for sexual harassment of an employee. The trial court ruled that it does and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. We hold that the policy excluded coverage for injuries to employees, and reverse.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE
David Smith (Smith), formerly a waiter at Tomato Café, filed suit in federal court against the café, its owners, and the manager of the café, claiming sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Smith contended that in 1996, during the time he worked at the café, his manager, Edward White, sexually harassed him by asking him to lunch repeatedly and touching him in a flirtatious manner, even after Smith had asked White to leave him alone. Smith contended White also harassed him by discussing the different ways White wanted to have sex. Tomato Café had an insurance policy with Truck Insurance Exchange (the insurance company), which defended the action under a reservation of rights, and settled the claim for $20,500.00.
Subsequently, in this action, the insurance company filed for a declaratory judgment that it was not required to pay under the policy. Defendants assigned their claims against the insurance company to Smith, and Smith intervened as a defendant. The insurance company and Smith stipulated to the facts, and each moved for summary judgment on the issue of coverage. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Smith.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 1-056(C) NMRA 2001; Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 1998-NMSC-046, 6, 126 N.M. 396, 970 P.2d 582. We review the district court's ruling de novo. Id. 6.
III. INSURANCE COVERAGE
The insurance company contends that sexual harassment is not covered because the policy contains an exclusion for injuries to employees. The insurance company also contends that sexual harassment is not covered because the policy requires "bodily injury," and an "occurrence," which is defined in terms of an "accident." The insurance company argues that there has been no bodily injury or accident.
Employee Coverage
The policy provides for the following coverage:
COVERAGE D - BUSINESS LIABILITY
We shall pay all sums for which you may become legally obligated to pay as damages caused by:
1. Bodily Injury, Personal Injury
2. Advertising Injury (subject to Deductible)
3. Property Damage
We shall pay up to the limit of liability for any one occurrence resulting from your business operations arising out of the insured location.
This coverage shall apply at a newly acquired location. It will cease if you do not report such location to us within 30 days of acquisition.
Insurance contracts are construed using the same principles that govern the construction of contracts generally. Rummel v. Lexington Ins. Co., 1997-NMSC-041, 18, 123 N.M. 752, 945 P.2d 970. The insurance contract is construed as a whole. Id. 20. Any ambiguity is construed against the insurer, and exclusions must be clearly expressed in the policy. Id. 22-23. When a court interprets the terms of an insurance policy that is unclear and ambiguous, the reasonable expectations of the insured guide the analysis. Ponder v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2000-NMSC-033, 26, 129 N.M. 698, 12 P.3d 960. However, when the policy language is clear and unamb
Page 1 2 3 4 5 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|