Opinion ID: 750099
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Liability Policy

Text: 58
59 Coverage A insures against damages resulting from bodily injury caused by an occurrence. 9 Occurrence is defined as an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions. Because none of Bailey's actions were accidental, it follows that no coverage exists for any of Cooke's and Levin's claims against FUMC and the four associate ministers. 60 Under Texas law, where a third-party's liability is related to and interdependent on other tortious activities, the ultimate issue is whether the underlying tortious activities are encompassed within the definition of occurrence. See Cornhill Ins. PLC v. Valsamis, Inc., 106 F.3d 80, 87 (5th Cir.1997); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir.1996). An insurer has no duty to defend or to indemnify its insured against claims that could not be brought absent the underlying and excluded tortious activities. See Cornhill Ins. PLC, 106 F.3d at 87; New York Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d at 339. For instance, in New York Life Ins. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., New York Life was sued for the negligent hiring, training, and supervision of one its employees, who allegedly defrauded a New York Life client. See New York Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d at 337, 340. The court found that the employee's underlying fraudulent acts were not an occurrence under the policy. 10 See id. at 339. Consequently, the court held that the claims against New York Life were excluded from coverage because [a] claim against a principal is 'related' to and 'interdependent' on a claim against an agent if the claim against the principal would not exist absent the claim against the agent. Id. at 340. 61 All of Cooke's and Levin's claims against FUMC and the four associate ministers either require proof of misconduct by Bailey or are related to and interdependent on Bailey's sexual misconduct. The basic factual allegation underlying every claim in this lawsuit is that Bailey engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with Cooke and Levin. While the alleged failure of FUMC and the four associate ministers to adequately respond to Bailey's conduct may have exacerbated Cooke's and Levin's injuries, there would have been no injuries at all absent Bailey's improper acts. Therefore, if Bailey's conduct is excluded from coverage, then so are all of Cooke's and Levin's claims against FUMC and the four associate ministers. 62 The Texas Supreme Court has held that a person's acts are not accidental when he commits an intentional act that results in injuries that ordinarily follow from or could be reasonably anticipated from the intentional act. See Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819, 827-28 (Tex.1997). Although a person may not intend the harm caused by his acts, if the harm is a natural or probable result of those acts, they are not caused by an accident. 11 See id. It is impossible not to conclude that Bailey's acts were intentional. For example, one cannot accidentally expose oneself to a parishioner during a counseling session. Appellants produce no evidence that Bailey did not intend to engage in sexually inappropriate behavior with them. Their artful pleading suggesting that Bailey's acts were negligent or reckless cannot overcome the basic facts underlying their claims. 63 In short, Crum & Forster has no duty to defend or to indemnify FUMC or the four associate ministers under Coverage A. All of Cooke's and Levin's claims against FUMC and the four associate ministers are related to and interdependent on Bailey's sexual actions, which were not occurrences as defined by the policy. 64
65 Coverage B insures against damages resulting from personal injury. 12 Because neither Cooke nor Levin allege any facts or claims against FUMC and the four associate ministers based upon personal injury as defined by the policy, we find no duty to defend or to indemnify on the part of Crum & Forster under Coverage B. 66