Beverly Harden and her husband, Ronald Harden, were named as defendants in a suit brought by Sharon Barrett as the parent and guardian of her minor child. Barrett alleged that Ronald Harden sexually abused the child while the child was visiting with the Hardens’ minor child at the Hardens’ residence. The suit claimed that Beverly Harden was also liable because she knew or should have known that her husband would sexually abuse the child, and that she negligently failed to properly supervise the child and left the child alone with her husband.
The Hardens tendered the defense of the suit to their homeowner’s insurance carrier, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. While taking the position that it had no duty to provide coverage or a defense to Ronald Harden on the sexual abuse claim, State Farm filed a declaratory judgment action naming the Hardens and Barrett as defendants and seeking a declaration that it also had no duty to defend or provide coverage to Beverly Harden on the claims asserted against her in the suit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, and Beverly Harden appeals in Case No. A04A1888. In Case No. A04A1889, Barrett appeals separately from the award of summary judgment in favor of State Farm. For the following reasons, we find the trial court correctly declared that State Farm had no duty to provide coverage or a defense to Beverly Harden.
*733 Case No. A04A1888
1. The trial court correctly rejected Beverly Harden’s claims that State Farm owed a duty under the homeowner’s insurance policy to provide her with coverage and a defense.
The State Farm homeowner’s policy contains the following provisions related to personal liability coverage:
If a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury ... to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence, we will. . . pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured is legally liable [and] . . . provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice. . . .
The term “occurrence” as used in the foregoing liability provision is defined by the policy as follows:
[Occurrence, when used in [the liability coverage section] of this policy, means an accident, including exposure to conditions, which results in . . . bodily injury. ...
Finally, the policy contains an exclusion from coverage which provides that liability coverage under the policy does not apply
to bodily injury... which is either expected or intended by an insured [or to bodily injury] to any person . . . which is the result of wilful and malicious acts of an insured.
Taken together, these provisions create a duty for State Farm to provide coverage and a defense for accidental occurrences resulting in bodily injury which were not expected or intended by an insured nor the result of wilful and malicious acts by an insured. Barrett’s suit against the Hardens sought recovery for physical and mental damages suffered by the minor child caused by sexual abuse of the child. The suit contains allegations that Ronald Harden engaged in intentional (not accidental) sexual abuse of the child, causing physical and mental damage to the child which he could only have expected and intended. It follows that, based on these allegations, State Farm had no duty under the terms of the policy to provide liability coverage or a defense to Ronald Harden.
Hain v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
*734
In addition to the allegations in the suit, it is undisputed that the alleged facts provided the basis for a guilty plea entered by Ronald Harden to the criminal charge of child molestation. Even though the plea was entered pursuant to
North Carolina v. Alford,
Beverly Harden contends that, even if the State Farm policy provides no coverage or defense to Ronald Harden on the allegations of sexual abuse, she is entitled to coverage and a defense because the allegations against her sound in negligence. We find, however, that the terms of the policy also unambiguously exclude coverage and a defense for claims that Beverly Harden negligently failed to prevent the abuse, allowed it to occur, or created circumstances that allowed it to occur. The policy excludes liability coverage for bodily injury “the result of willful and malicious acts of an insured.” This provision and others in the policy leave no doubt that State Farm had no duty to provide coverage or a defense to Ronald Harden on the claim for
*735
bodily injury caused by his alleged sexual abuse. Moreover, the claim against Beverly Harden was necessarily “the result of’ Ronald Harden’s alleged acts of sexual abuse, because there would be no claim against Beverly Harden but for Ronald Harden’s alleged acts. The exclusion from coverage for injury “the result of’ wilful and malicious acts makes clear that the policy excludes not only the claim based on Ronald Harden’s alleged acts of sexual abuse, but also any claim which has its genesis in or was “the result of’ those acts. Accordingly, even if Beverly Harden negligently caused or allowed the sexual abuse to occur, the policy excludes coverage and a defense for this negligence claim because it was “the result of’ the alleged sexual abuse.
Continental Cas. Co. v. HSI Financial Svcs.,
Case No. A04A1889
2. Barrett also contends that, even if the State Farm policy provides no coverage or defense on her claim against Ronald Harden for sexual abuse, the policy does cover her negligence claim against Beverly Harden.
For the reasons set forth in Division 1, supra, we find the State Farm policy unambiguously excludes coverage and a defense for the negligence claim against Beverly Harden. Accordingly, we find no merit in Barrett’s contentions and affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm.
Judgment affirmed.