Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Application of the Abuse Exclusion: Recent Developments

By Jessica F. Pardi
May 02, 2014

Claims of sexual abuse and molestation are devastating to business owners and disconcerting to insurers because they often are made by or on behalf of minors, with whom jurors will sympathize and against whom statutes of limitations often do not apply. Moreover, they frequently contain high-dollar demands. It has been reported that insurers already have paid more than $59 million to defend and settle sexual abuse claims against Penn State University stemming from the abuse perpetrated by Jerry Sandusky. Based upon the complexity and risk, many sexual abuse claims result in coverage disputes.

Most commercial general liability, business owners' and homeowners' policies exclude coverage for the actual abuser under either an intentional acts exclusion or an abuse exclusion. While certain types of physical injury may be argued to be unintentional, sexual abuse or molestation is always considered an intentional wrongdoing. Coverage disputes arising from abuse claims frequently involve claims against persons or organizations other than the alleged abuser and analysis of either or both of the following: 1) applicable policy language separating insureds for purposes of coverage; and/or 2) the scope and wording of the abuse exclusion.

Often, a plaintiff files a lawsuit not only against the alleged abuser, but also against other defendants (churches, hospitals, governmental entities, schools, employers, etc.) who purportedly were negligent in failing to prevent the abuse or in creating a situation where the abuse allegedly was more likely to occur. Common examples of such allegations include negligent hiring, training and/or supervision of an employee who allegedly commits abuses, and negligent protection, supervision of or care for a minor or patient who allegedly has been abused. Such claims may or may not be covered and therefore often lead to declaratory judgment actions.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.