Opinion ID: 1506689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unintended Injury & Exclusion a

Text: [¶ 7] As a preliminary matter, we address Commercial Union's contentions that the trial court's rationale need not be reached because it is entitled to a summary judgment on other grounds. Commercial Union argues that we need not reach the exclusions of the policy because the underlying claims are not within the coverage for bodily injury. It contends that due to the intentional nature of the unlawful conduct amounting to sexual harassment and discrimination, such conduct does not constitute an accident as a matter of law, and therefore, does not constitute an occurrence as defined and covered under the policy. [¶ 8] The Academy argues that any bodily injury to Martin (i.e., her claim of severe emotional distress) that resulted from the alleged sexual harassment and wrongful discharge constitutes an accident because the claimed bodily injury was at least potentially unanticipated. It contends, among other things, that sexual harassment can take a myriad of forms, including everything from excessive sexually-oriented joking to demands for sexual favors, and that Commercial Union's contentions reflect a narrow, unrealistic view of sexual harassment. The Academy contends that such allegations, as well as the allegations of emotional distress, trigger the duty to defend. We agree. [¶ 9] The accidental nature of an event for purposes of a liability insurance contract does not derive from the volitional nature of the act, but rather from the unintentional nature of the consequences flowing from the act. We have consistently found a duty to defend under policies containing language similar to the policy at issue, even though the underlying claims alleged intentional conduct, provided the alleged harms could constitute an accidental unintended consequence of the intentional conduct. See Vigna, 686 A.2d at 600-01 (emotional pain and suffering resulting from failure to pay for contracted services); Gibson, 673 A.2d at 1353 (harm resulting from trespass); Maine Bonding & Cas. Co. v. Douglas Dynamics, 594 A.2d 1079 (Me.1991) (emotional distress resulting from wrongful discharge). Here Martin's claimed bodily injury was, at least, potentially unanticipated. Moreover, Martin's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress also triggers the duty to defend. See Hanover Ins. Co. v. Crocker, 1997 ME 19, ¶ 5, 688 A.2d 928, 930 ([I]njuries resulting from negligent conduct are considered `accidental' and not `expected or intended' and . . . those injuries are therefore caused by an occurrence within the language of an insurance] policy.). [¶ 10] Commercial Union next argues that, as a matter of public policy, all claims of unlawful sexual harassment and sexual discrimination based on disparate treatment, as opposed to disparate impact, should be within the exclusion for expected or intended injury  so called exclusion a  as a matter of law. In other words, it contends that an expectation of harm should be inferred from conduct constituting actionable sexual harassment and sexual discrimination. The Academy counters that the question is not whether there exists an expectation of harm, but rather whether there exists an expectation of bodily injury, and bodily injury is not necessarily expected or intended by the perpetrator of unwanted sexual advances and wrongful discharge. We agree. [¶ 11] Commercial Union's arguments on this issue are similar and related to its contentions regarding the scope of the coverage for bodily injury, and as such, they are similarly unavailing. Although Commercial Union attempts to distinguish our decision in Maine Bonding, as involving wrongful discharge rather than sexual harassment or discrimination, the principle of law outlined in that case is applicable here. In Maine Bonding, we held that an exclusion for expected or intended injury applies only if the insured subjectively intended harm or subjectively foresaw harm was practically certain to occur. Maine Bonding, 594 A.2d at 1081-82. Here it is at least possible that Martin could recover for injury that the insured parties neither subjectively intended nor foresaw and therefore the exclusion would not apply. Moreover, Commercial Union's arguments ignore that Martin could potentially recover for the wrongful discharge alleged in one count of her complaint; thus Maine Bonding is controlling, at least with respect to that count. Commercial Union's arguments also ignore that the policy may provide coverage for one of the insured parties whose negligence contributed to Martin's injuries. Crocker, 1997 ME 19, ¶¶ 6-9, 688 A.2d at 931-32.