488 S.W.3d 683
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff D.M.A. sued Hungerford (former teacher), the District, and administrators after Hungerford’s 2008 first-degree child molestation conviction.
- The District carried MUSIC insurance; MUSIC defended the District and administrators but not Hungerford personally.
- Plaintiff settled with the District and administrators, then amended Hungerford’s liability claim to include “sexual misconduct.”
- A default judgment of $10,000,000 was entered against Hungerford for sexual misconduct; Plaintiff sought to garnish MUSIC’s funds to satisfy it.
- The circuit court granted MUSIC’s summary judgment, holding Hungerford not a “Covered Person,” the molestation not an “Occurrence,” and exclusions barred coverage; Plaintiff appeals.
- The appellate court reviews insurance-coverage questions de novo and analyzes the policy as a whole to determine ambiguity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hungerford’s act qualifies as an “Occurrence.” | Hungerford’s molestation is an act within the policy’s Occurrence concept. | Molestation is intentional, not an Accident, thus not an Occurrence. | Not an Occurrence; intentional molestation is excluded. |
| Whether the policy’s terms create ambiguity between Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Molestation. | Summary page lists Sexual Misconduct as an Occurrence; body excludes Sexual Molestation. | Policy viewed as a whole is unambiguous; Sexual Misconduct covers vicarious liability but not individual acts. | Policy unambiguous; Sexual Misconduct is an Occurrence for vicarious district liability but not for the individual’s act. |
| Whether Hungerford is a “Covered Person” under the Policy. | Hungerford fits the definition of a Covered Person. | Hungerford is excluded as an individual act; not covered. | Not necessary to decide due to dispositive Occurrence ruling; ultimately not covered. |
| Whether Todd v. MUSIC controls the outcome. | Todd is still relevant; policy could be ambiguous. | Todd is controlling precedent. | Todd is controlling; here, intentional acts are not covered as Occurrences.” |
Key Cases Cited
- Todd v. Missouri United School Insurance Council, 223 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. banc 2007) (two coverages; intentional acts not covered under Coverage A; district vicarious liability coverage under Coverage B)
- Seeck v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 212 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. banc 2007) (insurance-coverage interpretations are reviews of questions of law; ambiguity rules apply de novo)
- Peters v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 853 S.W.2d 300 (Mo. banc 1993) (ambiguous vs. unambiguous policy interpretation guidance)
- Burns v. Smith, 303 S.W.3d 505 (Mo. banc 2010) (summary judgment standard and de novo review authority)