Opinion ID: 165950
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d 1074, 1082 (Conn. 2000).

Text: -8- exclusion encompasses the co-camper: “This insurance does not apply to ‘bodily injury’ . . . arising out of: (1) The actual or threatened abuse or molestation by anyone of any person while in the care, custody or control of any insured.” App., vol. I at 182 (emphasis added). Finally, defendants contend the exclusion is ambiguous because the second paragraph lists negligence claims related to “a person for whom any insured is or ever was legally responsible and whose conduct would be excluded by (a) above.” App., vol. II at 182. Paragraph (a) does not exist; the two paragraphs in this exclusion are actually numbered “1” and “2.” In context, the reference to (a) appears to be a typographical error that does not obscure the meaning of the exclusion by lack of clarity or double meaning. See Pribble, 933 P.2d at 1112. It thus does not rise to the level of ambiguity. Id. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM. 3 ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour