HNRK Coverage Corner
On April 22, 2022, the New York Appellate Division, First Department issued a decision in Madison Square Boys & Girls Club, Inc. v. Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 02625, holding that a sexual abuse exclusion applied to claims for negligent supervision.
This coverage action arose out of a lawsuit by former members of the Madison Square Boys and Girls Club, who alleged that they were sexually abused as children by a former volunteer and former coach for the organization. Madison Square sought coverage under a claims-made liability policy for the lawsuit, which asserted claims for negligent supervision. The insurer denied the claim based on a sexual misconduct and child abuse exclusion, which barred coverage for any claim “based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from, in consequence of, or in any way involving any actual or alleged Sexual Misconduct . . . or child abuse or neglect.”
The First Department affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the insured’s coverage action based, inter alia, on this exclusion. Although Madison Square was not sued for sexual misconduct but for the negligent supervision of its staff, the Court explained:
The exclusion at issue bars coverage for loss from any claim arising out of, or in any way involving sexual misconduct and child abuse. The underlying complaint’s negligent supervision claim necessarily arises out of sexual misconduct as it is based on the allegations that the failure to supervise led to the sexual abuse of MSBGC’s members when they were children. . . . The underlying complaint’s emotional distress claim is also premised on MSBGC’s failure to supervise and arises out of sexual misconduct.
(Citation omitted).
The First Department’s ruling in this case relies on precedent establishing a broad definition of the phrase “arising out of” to require only “some causal relationship” between the loss and the excluded conduct. Country-Wide Ins. Co. v. Excelsior Ins. Co., 147 A.D.3d 407, 409 (1st Dep’t 2017) (citing Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Creative Hous., 88 N.Y.2d 347, 350 (1996)) (emphasis added). This broad reading—rather than a more narrow one focusing on proximate as opposed to “but-for” causation—would appear to run counter to the general maxim that exclusionary clauses are to be read narrowly in favor of coverage. Indeed, an insurer could easily write an express exclusion for negligent supervision claims involving sexual misconduct. Having not done so, why should it be entitled to accomplish the same end through a broad reading of an less precisely-worded exclusion?
- Partner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Ohio Supreme Court Rules Computer Software Cannot Be Subject To “Physical Loss” Or “Physical Damage” Under Insured’s Property Insurance Policy
- Criminal Acts Exclusion Bars Coverage Even Though Insured Not Charged With, or Convicted of, a Crime
- Insurer Not Permitted to Recoup Defense Costs Absent Express Reservation of the Right to Do So
- Liability Insurer May Not Deny Defense Coverage Based On Extrinsic Evidence “Bound Up With the Merits of the Underlying Case”
- Second Circuit Rules That Lower-Tier Excess Policies Were Exhausted by Below-Limits Settlement with Insured
- Does Contra Proferentem Apply to the “Sophisticated Insured”?
- Sexual Misconduct Exclusion Bars Coverage for Negligence Supervision Claim
- Delaware Supreme Court Rejects “Fundamentally Identical” Standard for Interpreting Related Claims Provision
- New York Court of Appeals Rules That Disgorgement Payment to SEC Did Not Constitute an Uninsured Penalty
- “Intentional Nonperformance” of Contractual Obligations Does Not Trigger Policy’s “Willful Acts”
Popular Categories
- Insurance Coverage
- Policy Exclusions
- Duty to Defend
- Cyber Coverage
- CGL Policies
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- D&O Policies
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Excess Insurance
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- COVID-19
- Occurrence/Accident
- Indemnification and Advancement
- Damages
- Rules of Interpretation
- Related Claims
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Covered Loss
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- E&O Policies
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018