Opinion ID: 1367552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Duty to Defend for Insured's Related Misconduct

Text: As this and other cases sadly illustrate, the criminal act of sexual molestation (Pen. Code, § 288) is often accompanied by ancillary misconduct designed to facilitate the ultimate sexual exploitation. Such acts may include attempts to isolate the minor from his or her peers, induce an emotional dependence, or arouse a precocious sexual response though manipulative foreplay such as kissing, petting or hugging. (See, e.g., John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 438 [256 Cal. Rptr. 766, 769 P.2d 948], [teacher used private tutoring sessions to develop a close relationship with the minor which he sexually exploited]; Fire Ins. Exchange v. Abbott, supra, 204 Cal. App.3d at p. 1017 [teacher made student feel that he was his only friend and was very supportive to accomplish subsequent sexual molestation]; State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Abraio (9th Cir.1989) 874 F.2d 619, 623 [molester sought opportunities to be alone with (the minor), taking her on motorcycle rides and camping trips far from the protection of her family.].) This genre of premeditated sexual manipulation is present here. Defendant, Barbara B., alleges that her teacher, Gary Lee, engaged in a calculated course of misconduct which included removing her from class, arranging to be alone with her during the school day, allowing her to sit on his lap, kissing, hugging and putting his arm around her, making sexually suggestive jokes, fomenting rumors of a sexual relationship with her, making her his teacher's pet, and engaging in childish and flirtatious behavior. Viewing these allegations in still-frame isolation, the majority assert that [n]othing in the complaint or the materials submitted in connection with the summary judgment proceedings enabled Horace Mann to determine that those allegations were related to the molestation.... (Maj. opn., ante, p. 1083.) On the contrary, the record discloses that the nonsexual allegations and the sexual molestation were not only related, but effectively inseparable. The very document in which defendant recites Lee's litany of nonsexual misconduct states that these acts served to isolate Barbara B. from her peers, induced an emotional dependence on Lee, and forced her to seek Lee's favor and approval, thus facilitating the sexual molestation. Referring to these specific nonsexual acts, plaintiff states: Overall, by the demeaning nature of Gary Lee in public towards Barbara [B.], Gary Lee forced Barbara [ B. ] to become further and further isolated from her peers and friends, and to turn to only him for emotional support. Gary's exercise of control over Barbara included the allowing of her to eat in the band room alone, which meant she would not be teased or harassed by her peers. ¶ In addition, Gary Lee did not treat Barbara [B.] in public like a person, but as a thing. This caused Barbara [ B. ] to seek Gary Lee's praise, approval or favor. (Italics added.) It is difficult to conceive a purer example of psychological and physical manipulation designed to seduce an innocent minor. As defendant herself states, these other acts isolated her from her peers, forced her to turn to [Lee] for emotional support, and caused [her] to seek [Lee's] praise, approval or favor. Contrary to the conclusion of the majority, this is not harassing conduct separable from the molestation (maj. opn., ante, p. 1087, italics added), but rather a pattern of corrupt behavior targeting a victim for sexual exploitation. The record demonstrates that these ancillary acts which the majority repeatedly characterize as  separable from the molestation in fact were inextricably linked to Lee's pedophilia. Relabeling such misconduct as nonsexual or negligent cannot alter its true nature and intent, nor withstand informed scrutiny. Viewed in isolation, some of the alleged nonsexual acts might not appear to be intentional or part and parcel of the molestation. But the facts must be viewed in their entirety, not antiseptically separated and microscopically examined. Lee's attempts to isolate defendant and to make her emotionally dependent on his favor and approval, although not per se criminal, bore a direct causal relationship to the molestation. Under the circumstances, these acts must themselves must be considered intentional, wrongful and inherently harmful. In sum, the extrinsic evidence adduced by defendant conclusively eliminated any potential for coverage. Horace Mann reasonably determined that it had no duty to defend.