The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that a homeowners' insurance carrier was not obligated to defend or indemnify its insured against a plaintiff's claims that she was in fear of contracting HIV and hepatitis because the insured had had contemporaneous, unprotected sex with multiple partners.
The Case
Jennifer A. sued Jeffrey W., alleging that he had had contemporaneous, unprotected sex with multiple partners, thereby placing her in fear of contracting HIV and hepatitis.
Jeffrey W. sought coverage under the homeowners' insurance policy he had acquired from Travelers Commercial Insurance Company.
Travelers asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to rule that it had no duty to cover Jeffrey W. in Jennifer A.'s lawsuit. The district court ruled in favor of Travelers, and the dispute reached the Ninth Circuit.
The Travelers Policy
The Travelers policy provided a duty to defend or indemnify claims for bodily injury caused by an:
occurrence
, defined as:
an accidentThe Ninth Circuit's Decision
The circuit court affirmed.
In its decision, the circuit court ruled that Jeffrey W.'s alleged acts of unprotected sex with other women had been “deliberate acts and therefore were not accidents within the meaning of the policy.”
As such, the Ninth Circuit ruled, Travelers had no duty to indemnify Jeffrey W. under its homeowners' insurance policy. Additionally, it decided, because the facts as pleaded in Jennifer A.'s complaint had created no potential for coverage, Travelers had “no duty to defend.”
The circuit court rejected Jennifer A.'s contention that the Travelers policy was ambiguity, observing that the term “accident” was not ambiguous under California law.
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].