Opinion ID: 76012
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Shrader and Livingston's Contentions

Text: 12 Shrader and Livingston argue that the district court erred because the linebacker policy expressly covers civil rights violations, such as sexual assault committed by City of Attalla employees. Shrader and Livingston emphasize that, at a minimum, there is an ambiguity in the terms of the linebacker policy that should be construed against EMCC, thereby resulting in coverage. 13 As argued by Shrader and Livingston, Part I of the linebacker policy provides coverage for personal injury damages paid in connection with a civil rights violation as follows: PART I — COVERAGE A. Agreement 14 We will pay Loss and/or Defense Expenses to which this insurance applies excess of the deductible stated in the Declarations provided that: 15 ... B. Loss means sums: 16 1. Which an insured is legally obligated to pay as compensatory damages ... because of a wrongful act. 17 ... D. Personal Injury means: 18 ... 19 f. Violations of constitutional/civil rights or improper service of process as it relates solely to the organization's law enforcement activities. 20 Although Part I provides coverage for personal injury, Part III of the linebacker policy then excludes coverage for personal injury claims. But then an endorsement to the linebacker policy deletes the exclusion for personal injury and amends the definition of Wrongful Act to include personal injury. 3 The net result is the linebacker policy covers claims for personal injury, which is defined to include civil rights violations. 21 Although providing coverage for civil rights violations, the linebacker policy also limits the definition of insured to employees acting within the scope of their duties as follows: PART II — DEFINITIONS 22 ...