Amy Schorno v. State Farm Fire and Casualty C

Good Law
445 F. App'x 956
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 3, 201110-35772California830 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Amy Schorno appeals the district court’s (1) summary judgment orders eliminating State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.’s duty to defend and Schorno’s bad faith claim for the refusal to defend and (2) orders denying several motions to compel discovery. We affirm.

I.

State Farm properly denied tender of Schorno’s defense. Schorno’s State Farm homeowner’s policy (1) only covers claims for “bodily injury” caused by an “accident,” and (2) excludes coverage for bodily injury that is “expected or intended by the insured.” The Kannadas’ demand letter and counterclaims allege that Schor-no engaged in a pattern of intentional, non-accidental conduct between 2000 and 2005, involving, among other things, rape, molestation, sexual abuse of a child, sexual grooming, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because Washington courts infer an intent to inflict harm in cases involving sexual abuse, Rodriguez v. Williams, 107 Wash.2d 381 , 729 P.2d 627, 630-31 (1986), the alleged conduct was neither accidental nor unintentional.

Additionally, it does not matter that Kevin Kannada reached the age of majority during the period of alleged sexual contact, because that would not have…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.