Skip to Content
The New York Appellate Division Fourth Department recently issued a decision affirming in part and reversing in part summary judgment motions against GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company (“GuideOne”) in a case brought by The Chapel and Edward Batt. The appellate court’s ruling provides insight into the interpretation of insurance policy coverage in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct.
Case Background
The lower court initially granted summary judgment in favor of The Chapel and Edward Batt, ruling that GuideOne was required to defend and indemnify both parties. However, the Fourth Department modified this judgment. It affirmed the lower court’s decision as to The Chapel but vacated the ruling concerning Edward Batt, declaring that GuideOne was not required to defend or indemnify him in the underlying action.
First Appeal: Coverage for Edward Batt
In the first appeal, GuideOne sought to overturn the lower court’s decision that it was obligated to defend and indemnify both The Chapel and Edward Batt. The insurer challenged whether its disclaimer was timely and whether coverage was required under the terms of its commercial policies.
GuideOne contended that it was not required to provide coverage for Edward Batt because:
- He was not acting within the scope of his employment when the alleged sexual abuse occurred.
- The policy defined an "insured" to include employees but excluded actions unrelated to the business.
- The alleged misconduct was personal in nature, meaning Batt did not qualify as an insured under the policy and GuideOne had no duty to issue a disclaimer under Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2).
The court agreed with GuideOne, ruling that Batt was not covered under the policy and that GuideOne had no duty to defend or indemnify him.
The court also addressed whether the claim constituted an “accident” under the policy. It determined that intentional acts, such as sexual abuse, do not qualify as accidents under insurance law, reinforcing the principle that liability policies do not cover deliberate misconduct.
Second Appeal: Timeliness of GuideOne’s Disclaimer
In the second appeal, GuideOne challenged the lower court’s ruling that it had failed to issue a timely disclaimer regarding coverage for The Chapel. Under Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2), insurers must disclaim coverage as soon as reasonably possible. The issue in this case was whether GuideOne’s delay in issuing its disclaimer was justified.
GuideOne argued that its October 7, 2020 email to the plaintiff satisfied its duty to disclaim. The court rejected this argument, explaining that a disclaimer must apprise the claimant with a high degree of specificity of the grounds on which the disclaimer is based. The October 7 email stated that no misconduct coverage was added to the policies and referenced a specific exclusion for misconduct. However, the court found that this email lacked the required specificity to serve as an effective disclaimer under Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2).
GuideOne’s November 24, 2020 email was deemed sufficiently specific. However, the court ruled that the 56-day delay in issuing this disclaimer was untimely as a matter of law. The court noted that:
- GuideOne received a letter on August 3, 2020, describing the allegations in sufficient detail to assess coverage.
- By September 29, 2020, GuideOne had obtained the policies necessary to make a coverage determination.
- Despite this, GuideOne waited until November 24, 2020, to issue a formal disclaimer.
GuideOne contended that the delay was reasonable because the plaintiff had requested additional investigation into other policies. The court rejected this argument, finding that the request for further investigation did not excuse GuideOne’s failure to act promptly.
Takeaways from the Decision
The Appellate Division’s ruling provides important guidance on insurer obligations in cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct:
- Affirmed: GuideOne was not required to defend or indemnify Edward Batt, as his alleged conduct was outside the scope of employment and excluded under the policy.
- Upheld: The lower court’s ruling that GuideOne’s disclaimer regarding The Chapel was untimely, reinforcing the strict requirements of Insurance Law § 3420(d)(2).
This decision underscores the importance of issuing timely disclaimers in insurance coverage disputes, particularly when the facts supporting the disclaimer are readily available. It also reaffirms that insurers are not required to defend or indemnify individuals whose conduct falls outside their employment scope or is otherwise excluded under the policy.
Both insurers and policyholders should take note of these legal principles, as they could have significant implications for future claims and coverage disputes.
