 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sanchez v. Davoudi8/15/2001
pellants' business and involves an employee which is beyond the personal liability policy's coverage. In addition, the policy expressly prohibits coverage for claims involving sexual molestation and physical or mental abuse.
The Sanchez's suit involves claims of sexual harassment and intentionally inflicted emotional distress which by our reading of the policy, in its plainest terms, falls under this exclusion. Lastly, the insurance policy follows Ohio public policy which prohibits insurance providers from covering harm caused by intentional tortfeasors.
This court has previously noted that "an insurance company owes an obligation to its insured when the conduct alleged against the insured is within the coverage of the contracted policy." In this case, the complaint includes negligence and intentional tort claims. In such a situation, the general rule is that:
* * * the insurance company that is contractually obligated to defend the insured in negligence actions is required to make a defense as to both claims against the insured, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the action or the insurance company's ultimate liability to the insured. [Citation omitted.]
However, the principle articulated above does not apply to the present case because the occurrences upon which the Sanchez complaint rests are intentional conduct. Mrs. Sanchez alleges that, while at work, Dr. Davoudi, inter alia, grabbed her breasts and genitals, made uninvited sexually-explicit comments, exposed himself, and threatened her. The negligence causes of action are a result of, or derive from, these allegations of sexual assault and harassment.
We conclude upon our review of the complaint and the depositions of key witnesses that the conduct complained of and the results thereof were intentional in nature and, therefore, fall beyond the scope of the insurance policy. The instances of alleged groping and other behavior are so numerous that they cannot even arguably be considered accidental. Given the parameters inherent in the summary judgment standard, we find that summary judgment was properly granted in this case. Accordingly, Appellants' sole assignment of error is overruled.
Having found no error prejudicial to appellant herein, in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed..
WALTERS, P.J., and BRYANT, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|