Opinion ID: 203898
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: negligent act or breach of duty;

Text: by any Insured while performing law enforcement duties. Sarsfield argues that the “wrongful acts” occurring after 1992 were the City police officers’ conduct in affirmatively covering up and failing to turn over exculpatory evidence once Sarsfield was in prison. As to the “personal injury,” he argues that the injuries were non-bodily injuries that arose out of the -6- offenses of denial of parole, denial of access to courts for post-conviction relief, and having to register as a sex offender. Great American argues that the “wrongful acts” at issue here are the arrest, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment of Sarsfield, and since these all occurred before the policy became effective, they do not trigger coverage. It asserts that there is no covered injury because all of the alleged injuries arise out of offenses, including malicious prosecution and false arrest, which occurred before 1992. The district court first found that Sarsfield’s complaint did not allege any wrongful act that occurred after 1992. It said the only two claims Sarsfield asserted in his complaint that related to the officers’ ongoing concealment were the claim for suppression of exculpatory evidence and conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights. It found these to be wrongful acts occurring before the policy period because these claims were presented as the officers’ concealment from the prosecutor, and therefore the wrongful acts ended before Sarsfield was incarcerated and the policy period began. Next, the district court assumed, arguendo, that the complaint alleged wrongful acts based on the officers’ violation of a continuing duty to disclose their misconduct. Even if this were sufficient, it found that the injuries resulting therefrom were not distinct from the injuries incurred upon conviction and -7- imprisonment. Further, it found that even if the concealment could be said to cause a distinct injury, because it first occurred prior to the policy period, any resulting injury would predate the policy. Finally, the court considered whether the concealment could result in a “continuing injury” and found that it could not be framed this way because theories of continuing injury only apply in tort cases which concern injuries which may have existed but were unknown at the time the insured purchased insurance.1 Because we find that the complaint itself failed to allege wrongful acts occurring within the policy period, we affirm the district court’s holding only to the extent it rested on this ground. Finding this sufficient, we do not reach the parties’ arguments relating to that holding. The policy states that the insurance “applies to ‘wrongful act(s)’ which occurs . . . during the policy period.” This language supports Great American’s argument that this is an “occurrence policy,” as opposed to a “claims made” policy, as argued by Sarsfield. “An ‘occurrence’ policy protects the policyholder from liability for any act done while the policy is in effect, whereas a ‘claims made’ policy protects the holder only against claims made during the life of the policy.” St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Barry, 438 U.S. 531, 535 (1978) (citing Barry 1 On appeal, Sarsfield explicitly states he does not make a “continuing injury” argument. -8- v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 555 F.2d 3, 5 n. 1 (1st Cir. 1977)). Therefore, in order for Sarsfield to succeed, he must show that his complaint is “reasonably susceptible” of an interpretation that it describes a “wrongful act” that occurred after 1992, when coverage began. The provision of the complaint relied on by Sarsfield to show he sufficiently alleged a “wrongful act” occurring during the coverage period is paragraph 53 of his third amended complaint: Throughout each year of Mr. Sarsfield’s decade of imprisonment, and indeed in each year of Mr. Sarsfield’s subsequent parole and after his exoneration, [the defendant police officers] continued to cover up their misconduct, including that they had used unduly suggestive identification procedures with [the rape victim], fabricated evidence and testified falsely at Mr. Sarsfield’s criminal trial. During each day that passes during which defendants refuse to come forward, they violate their ongoing duties to Mr. Sarsfield and cause him continued suffering. Indeed, to date none of these defendants had admitted the truth about their misconduct.2 As the district court found, the only concealment specifically discussed was tied to concealment from the prosecutor. The clause stating that the defendants “continued to cover up their misconduct” (the “misconduct” being further described as including the suggestive identification, fabrication of evidence and false 2 Paragraph 53 was a statement in the “Facts” section of the complaint, and each count started off with a statement incorporating “all of the foregoing,” yet nowhere in the “Counts” listed does Sarsfield specifically discuss this ongoing concealment. Each count re-enumerated the relevant facts to the claim specifically, and no count included any facts specifically showing ongoing concealment. -9- testimony at the trial) is not enough to allege a “wrongful act” occurring during the coverage period. Therefore, it cannot be said that Great American, acting as “an objectively reasonable insured, reading the relevant policy language,” would expect these alleged “wrongful acts” to be covered. See Hazen Paper Co. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 55 N.E.2d 576 (Mass. 1993).