59 So. 3d 1166
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Insurer filed a declaratory judgment action seeking defense/coverage denial for a negligent supervision action arising from sexual molestation.
- Policy excludes bodily injury arising out of sexual molestation; insurer argued exclusion applies regardless of the theory of liability.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for insurer; the circuit court and appellate court affirmed.
- Insureds/victim argued exclusion is inapplicable because underlying action is negligent supervision, not sexual molestation by insured; ambiguity urged in favor of coverage.
- Court analyzed the exclusion language in the context of the entire exclusions section, concluding exclusion k applies to bodily injury arising out of sexual molestation by any person.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does sexual molestation exclusion apply to negligent supervision actions? | Mtwins argue exclusion should not apply since liability theory is negligent supervision, not molestation by insured. | Insurer contends exclusion applies to any sexual molestation-based bodily injury, regardless of legal theory. | Yes; exclusion applies to bodily injury arising from sexual molestation by any person. |
| Is exclusion k ambiguous when compared with exclusion l? | Exclusion k lacks explicit 'by any person'; exclusion l expressly uses 'by any person' and could render k ambiguous. | Reading all exclusions together shows no ambiguity; l's language is not controlling for k, and k remains unambiguous. | Unambiguous; exclusion k applies as written. |
| Should the exclusion be interpreted in isolation or in context of the entire exclusions section? | Context would favor coverage if exclusions are read in isolation or if ambiguity exists. | Exclusion must be read in light of the entire exclusions; the language is clear when viewed as a whole. | Exclusion read in context is unambiguous; favors insurer. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., 979 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2007) (apply plain language and read policy as a whole)
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So.2d 638 (Fla. 1999) (correct outcome if trial court reasoned on right grounds)
- Mactown, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 716 So.2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (ambiguous exclusion when read in isolation; limited assistance)
- Premier Insurance Co. v. Adams, 632 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (ambiguity and severability clause; interpretation in favor of insured in some contexts)
- American Strategic Ins. Co. v. Lucas-Solomon, 927 So.2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (de novo review of contract interpretation; insurer must bear burden)