Minkler

Minkler v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

Good Law
110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 612·2010 Cal. LEXIS 5669·49 Cal. 4th 315·232 P.3d 612
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 17, 2010S174016California7,790 words

Opinion

Opinion

Baxter, J.

We have agreed to answer a question of California insurance law directed to us by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Scott Minkler (Scott) sued David Schwartz (David) and David’s mother, Betty Schwartz (Betty), alleging that David, an adult, sexually molested Scott, then a minor. The complaint alleged, among other things, that some of the acts of molestation occurred in Betty’s home, and as a result of Betty’s negligent supervision.

Betty was the named insured under a series of homeowners policies issued by Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco), and David was an additional insured. The policies’ liability coverage provisions promised to defend and indemnify, within policy limits, “an” insured for personal injury or property damage arising from a covered “occurrence,” but they specifically excluded coverage for injury that was “expected or intended” by “an” insured, or was the foreseeable result of “an” insured’s intentional act. Absent contrary evidence, in a policy with multiple insureds, exclusions from coverage described with reference to the acts of “an” or “any,” as opposed to “the,” insured are deemed under California law to apply…

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.