Payment of premiums over the years does not create coverage for claims expressly excluded by the policy terms. If a court even entertains the University’s suit it is choosing to ignore the insurance contract. The molestation exclusion was added to policies to avoid coverage for the intentional wrongful acts of employees of insureds, it is an extension of the exclusion that has always been in the policy excluding coverage for claims arising from the insureds expected or intended harm. This exclusion was added because of the legal construction of the expected and intended exclusion did not apply to the acts of employees that are imputed to the insured organization. Why should everybody else who pays premiums foot the bill for the University which failed to take action against Sandusky when this was brought to its attention? Why should an insurer pay legal bills for an act that was intended to be excluded simply because the insured is a large, powerful and influential institution that thinks it can re-write its coverage after the fact?
I skimmed ths and it appears molestation wasn’t excluded till the early 90s, and its unclear exactly when the act occcured. So while the “they paid premium, and now there’s no response” makes me upset too – since its excluded – there’s a little more to the story here…
Bill hit the target right in the center. How can anyone seriously make a claim for coverage of something that is clearly excluded? If a court grants coverage in this case, we might as well trash all insurance contracts because they’ll no longer mean any thing. And, I agree with JW’s comment about this making a good case study for risk management courses – especially the application thereof.
Its another case of the elitists or educated ones thinking that they are entitled and I am betting that they find a judge that thinks they are as well.
I see this position time and time again from personal insurance insureds’ which are upset over a denied claim. It’s interesting to see Penn State whine with the same posturing.
No mention in the article about severability of interests, but the comments here seem to overlook the possibility that the University might be entitled to coverage for allegations of negligent supervision, etc., regardless of whether Sandusky’s acts were intentional. Sandusky himself may not be entitled to any protection, but the University well could be. Too little info presented here to really say, at this point.
Except for the fact that they were made aware of this activity over 10 years ago and chose do take no action, and continued to let this environment flourish. This is the very definition of the expected and intended exclusion.
Also @ Sandman: you are correct. The liberal and policitically progressive court system in PA will take this on and will set a very dangerous precedent that will need to be over-turned by the US Supreme Court.
I would tend to agree with BWM. Policy would definitely exclude coverage for Sandusky’s defense as an employee of the school, but negligence in monitoring for abuse/molestation is not the same as direct abuse molestation. Of course we haven’t read the carrier’s abuse exclusion either, it may also exclude vicarious liability.
Payment of premiums over the years does not create coverage for claims expressly excluded by the policy terms. If a court even entertains the University’s suit it is choosing to ignore the insurance contract. The molestation exclusion was added to policies to avoid coverage for the intentional wrongful acts of employees of insureds, it is an extension of the exclusion that has always been in the policy excluding coverage for claims arising from the insureds expected or intended harm. This exclusion was added because of the legal construction of the expected and intended exclusion did not apply to the acts of employees that are imputed to the insured organization. Why should everybody else who pays premiums foot the bill for the University which failed to take action against Sandusky when this was brought to its attention? Why should an insurer pay legal bills for an act that was intended to be excluded simply because the insured is a large, powerful and influential institution that thinks it can re-write its coverage after the fact?
This will be a good case study for the risk management course next year, read the policy.
I skimmed ths and it appears molestation wasn’t excluded till the early 90s, and its unclear exactly when the act occcured. So while the “they paid premium, and now there’s no response” makes me upset too – since its excluded – there’s a little more to the story here…
on second thought the intentional act thing was always there so nevermind…
Bill hit the target right in the center. How can anyone seriously make a claim for coverage of something that is clearly excluded? If a court grants coverage in this case, we might as well trash all insurance contracts because they’ll no longer mean any thing. And, I agree with JW’s comment about this making a good case study for risk management courses – especially the application thereof.
Its another case of the elitists or educated ones thinking that they are entitled and I am betting that they find a judge that thinks they are as well.
I see this position time and time again from personal insurance insureds’ which are upset over a denied claim. It’s interesting to see Penn State whine with the same posturing.
No mention in the article about severability of interests, but the comments here seem to overlook the possibility that the University might be entitled to coverage for allegations of negligent supervision, etc., regardless of whether Sandusky’s acts were intentional. Sandusky himself may not be entitled to any protection, but the University well could be. Too little info presented here to really say, at this point.
Except for the fact that they were made aware of this activity over 10 years ago and chose do take no action, and continued to let this environment flourish. This is the very definition of the expected and intended exclusion.
Also @ Sandman: you are correct. The liberal and policitically progressive court system in PA will take this on and will set a very dangerous precedent that will need to be over-turned by the US Supreme Court.
I would tend to agree with BWM. Policy would definitely exclude coverage for Sandusky’s defense as an employee of the school, but negligence in monitoring for abuse/molestation is not the same as direct abuse molestation. Of course we haven’t read the carrier’s abuse exclusion either, it may also exclude vicarious liability.