We are concerned that if suit is filed it will be against The Housekeepers (policyholder) and not the employee that took the items. Do you feel coverage would be excluded in this case or do you feel since The Housekeepers (policyholder) did not intentionally take the items there would be coverage? We also have the issue of liability since there is no proof the employee took the items, although it is very likely because employee was new and apparently took items from two different homes. There was supervision, but she picked up just what was out without the supervisor knowing. We can't get past coverage to determine liability at this point. Thanks for your help.

Indiana Subscriber

As you stated, an employee of the named insured is considered an insured under the policy. And, CG 0001 12-04 excludes property damage expected or intended “from the standpoint of the insured”. 

However, as a result of the policy's separation of insureds clause, each insured is considered a separate insured by the CGL form. Therefore, unless the named insured knew about the thefts and approved of them or unless the named insured took part in the theft or unless the named insured authorized the thefts, there is no property damage expected or intended from the standpoint of the named insured. So, although it is probable that the exclusion would apply to a claim against the employee, it is not likely that the exclusion should prevent liability coverage for The Housekeepers if a claim is made against it for the injury the employee caused. 

As for your question regarding liability, we cannot answer questions about legal responsibility.  You might want to consider asking an attorney who is familiar with the law in your area for guidance with legal issues.