Court Opinion

ID: 9731480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:46:58.273687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:18.492020
License: Public Domain

SIMS, J.
J.—I concur in the result reached by my colleagues but write separately to address an argument of the county not expressly addressed in the majority opinion.
The county contends that even if its employee, Crenshaw, intentionally performed the alleged acts, “the County may possibly have been unaware of the wrongdoing. Instead the County could have been acting in good faith and thus not have intended the bodily injury as it was accidental.”
In order to examine the county’s possible liability, it is helpful to look at the complaint. Paragraph V of the first cause of action alleges a campaign of harassment against plaintiff by Crenshaw during plaintiff’s employment with the county. In paragraph V it is alleged Crenshaw reprimanded plaintiff *1204for leaving the office when plaintiff was ill and suffering from high blood pressure. Assuming plaintiff seeks damages for this campaign of harrassment, coverage for the county is excluded pursuant to the following clear exclusion found on page 4 of the policy: “Employer’s Liability. We won’t cover bodily injuries to anyone employed by you or any other protected person unless they’re assumed under a contract or agreement that’s not excluded above.”
No contract or agreement provided for assumption of liability by county. I do not reach the question whether the county can be held derivatively liable under the Government Code for Crenshaw’s intentional campaign of harassment. Suffice it to say that, to the extent paragraph V of the complaint may seek damages from the county for events and injuries that occurred during plaintiff’s employment, coverage for any liability is clearly excluded by the above language.
As my colleagues note, read in its entirety the complaint most obviously seeks damages from the county on the theory the board of supervisors wrongfully eliminated plaintiff’s job. As plaintiff pleads in paragraph III of his first cause of action, “The reason given for elimination of the position was reduction in the amount of funds in the budget.” The county cannot be liable on this theory if the board acted in good faith and for the reason stated. (California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 318, 322 [139 Cal.Rptr. 633].) Elimination of plaintiff’s position would be unlawful only if the board acted in bad faith, so that elimination of the job on account of a reduction in funds was merely a subterfuge for dismissing plaintiff from employment. (Ibid.) However, if the board acted knowingly and in bad faith, it would intend a wrongful act and the wrongful termination of plaintiff’s job would not be an “accidental event” under the policy.
The petition of real parites in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 2, 1985.