 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Gagnon8/23/2001
iguous, we must give effect to the contract and enforce it as written. Id. 11.
B. Employee Exclusion
The employee exclusion, which consists of two clauses, is, in pertinent part, as follows:
EXCLUSIONS
We do not pay for:
2. Injury to any employee of yours arising out of and in the course of employment; if you are a partnership or a joint venture, to any partner or member of the joint venture.
3. Any obligations we or you may be held liable for under any workmen's or workers' compensation disability benefits law, or any similar law.
In this case, we must decide whether Clauses 2 and 3 exclude coverage for all injuries to employees, or whether they only exclude coverage for worker 's compensation injuries. The insurance company argues that the clauses express a blanket exclusion of all injuries to employees. Smith argues that the clauses only exclude coverage for injuries that are covered by workers' compensation. Following the great weight of authority, we agree with the insurance company.
The policy language in our case reflects a common employee exclusion. See, e.g., Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Ins. Co., 559 N.W.2d 411, 418, 420 n.21 (Minn. 1997) (policy does not apply to "bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment by the insured," and excluded obligations "of which the insured or any carrier as his insurer may be held liable under the workers' or workmen's compensation , * * * or under any similar law"(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. L-C-A Sales Co., 713 A.2d 1007, 1009 (N.J. 1998) (the policy did not apply to " ny obligation under a workers' compensation, disability benefits or unemployment compensation law or any similar law," or to ` odily injury to . . . n employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment by the insured'" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
The overwhelming weight of authority is that employee exclusion clauses in general comprehensive liability policies like the one in this case exclude coverage for sexual harassment of employees. See I-L Logging Co. v. Mfrs. & Wholesalers Indem. Exch., 273 P.2d 212, 220, 222 (in banc) (the purpose of business liability policies is to cover damages to members of the public, as distinguished from damages to employees) on rehearing 275 P.2d 226 (Or. 1954); McLeod v. Tecorp Int'l, Ltd., 865 P.2d 1283, 1287-88 (Or. 1993) (en banc) (employee exclusion precluded coverage for employee's claim of wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Kasler Corp., 906 F.2d 196, 198-200 (5th Cir. 1990) (employee exclusion applied to injuries to employee sustained when a tool touched a power line); Omark Indus., Inc. v. Safeco Ins. Co., 590 F. Supp. 114, 116-20 (D. Or. 1984) (employee exclusion applied to employee discrimination claim); Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 713 A.2d at 1011-14 (employee exclusion applied to wrongful termination claim); cf. W. Am. Ins. Co. v. Bank of Isle of Wight, 673 F. Supp. 760, 765-66 (E.D. Va. 1987) (emotional injury from wrongful termination is not covered under the employee exclusion); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Compupay, Inc., 654 So. 2d 944, 947 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) (sexual harassment is not covered because the policy "clearly and unambiguously excludes from insurance coverage an injury to an employee caused by another employee in the course of employment"); Cornhill Ins. PLC v. Valsamis, Inc., 106 F.3d 80, 86 (5th Cir. 1997); Bd. of Educ. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 604 N.Y.S.2d 399, 400 (App. Div. 1993); David v
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.
|
|