Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** COMMUNITY ACTION FOR GREATER MIDDLESEX COUNTY, INC. v. AMERICAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY (SC 16131)
McDonald, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued March 15--officially released August 29, 2000 Counsel

John W. Lemega, with whom, on the brief, was Michael S. Taylor, for the appellant (plaintiff). Linda L. Morkan, with whom, on the brief, was Theodore J. Tucci, for the appellee (defendant).
Opinion

PALMER, J. The principal issue raised by this certified appeal is whether the defendant insurer, American Alliance Insurance Company, had a duty to defend its insured, the plaintiff, Community Action for Greater Middlesex County, Inc., in a negligence action brought against the plaintiff on behalf of a child who alleged that she had been sexually abused and sexually molested by three other children while the four children were attending a preschool program operated by the plaintiff. The defendant contends that it had no duty to defend

the plaintiff in light of an exclusion in its insurance policy for abuse or molestation. We agree with the defendant. The decision of the Appellate Court sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history. ``[The plaintiff] initiated suit against [the defendant] for breach of an insurance contract. The allegations asserted in the complaint include the following. [The plaintiff], a federally funded agency, provides a preschool training program. [The defendant] is the general liability insurance carrier for [the plaintiff] under a policy purchased from [the defendant] by [the plaintiff]. The parent and next friend of a six year old child1 [Edna Poe]2 brought suit against [the plaintiff] alleging that while [Poe] was enrolled in the program, she was sexually molested [and sexually abused]3 by three boys who were in her class.4 [In particular, the suit alleges that, on two separate occasions, the three boys had ``grabbed and fondled'' Poe's vagina.]5 ``Pursuant to the insurance contract, [the defendant] agreed to defend and indemnify [the plaintiff] against any action seeking damages due to bodily injury. Upon notice of the litigation brought on behalf of [Poe], [the plaintiff] notified [the defendant] and demanded that [the defendant] defend and indemnify it against the suit. [The defendant] declined to defend or to indemnify [the plaintiff], relying on the abuse or molestation exclusion contained in the insurance policy. Following its successful defense of [Poe's case], [the plaintiff] sought reimbursement from [the defendant] for all the expenses incurred, plus interest. [The defendant] refused the demand and [the plaintiff] filed a complaint alleging that [the defendant] breached the insurance contract by its failure to provide a defense. ``[The defendant] responded to the complaint, admitting certain allegations and denying others, and raised a special defense. Specifically, [the defendant] asserted that the insurance policy issued to [the plaintiff] contained an express exclusion for abuse or molestation,6 the provisions of which apply to the claims raised by [Poe] against [the plaintiff], and, therefore, [the defendant] did not owe [the plaintiff] any duty to defend or any other contractual obligation under the applicable policy. The record does not contain a reply to this special defense. ``In March, 1997, both parties filed motions for summary judgment . . . . Following oral argument, the trial court reserved decision and then, by notice dated May 14, 1997, notified the parties of its ruling in favor of [the defendant]. The trial court did not provide a memorandum of decision to explain the basis for its decision. Rather, the court simply signed the order, indicated that [the plaintiff's] motion for summary judgment was denied and that [the defendant's] motion for summary judgment was granted, and wrote on the order, `See Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Rand,

Superior Court, [judicial district of Middlesex, Docket No. CV95-76644] (April 4, 1996) [16 Conn. L. Rptr. 414] (Stanley, J.).' '' Community Action for Greater Middlesex County, Inc. v. American Alliance Ins. Co., 52 Conn. App. 449, 450

Download Community Action for Greater Middlesex County, Inc. v. American Alliance Ins. Co

Connecticut Law