Court Opinion

ID: 2964125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:56.55441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:27:37.989829
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            United States Court of Appeals
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________
        No. 95-2068

                       WINNACUNNET COOPERATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                   NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                                 ____________________
        No. 95-2069

                           SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT #21,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                   NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                                 ____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Selya, Stahl, and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Robert  A. Casassa  with whom  Casassa and Ryan  was on  brief for
            __________________             ________________
        appellants.
            Gordon A. Rehnborg with whom  Doreen F. Connor and Wiggin & Nourie
            __________________            ________________     _______________
        PA were on brief for appellee.
        __
                                 ____________________

                                     May 23, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      STAHL, Circuit Judge.  Plaintiff-appellants
                      STAHL, Circuit Judge.
                             _____________

            Winnacunnet Cooperative School  District ("Winnacunnet")  and

            School Administrative Unit #21  ("SAU #21") appeal the denial

            of their summary  judgment motions and  the grant of  summary

            judgment in  favor of defendant-appellee, National Union Fire

            Insurance  Company ("National  Union").   In its  ruling, the

            district  court  held  that   insurance  policies  issued  by

            National Union  did not  cover certain legal  claims asserted

            against them, and that there was no genuine issue of material

            fact  as to the applicability  of two policy  exclusions.  We

            affirm.

                                          I.
                                          I.
                                          __

                       Factual Background and Prior Proceedings
                       Factual Background and Prior Proceedings
                       ________________________________________

                      To explicate  the  insurance coverage  dispute,  we

            first recount  the events  underlying the claims  against the

            insured parties, Winnacunnet and SAU #21.

                      In  1991, former  Winnacunnet High  School students

            Vance  Lattime,  Jr.,  Patrick  Randall,  and  William  Flynn

            pleaded guilty to the murder of Gregory Smart, the husband of

            the school media director, Pamela Smart ("Smart").  See State
                                                                ___ _____

            v.  Smart, 622 A.2d 1197,  1202 (N.H.), cert.  denied, 114 S.
                _____                               _____  ______

            Ct. 309 (1993).   The students  eventually testified for  the

            state  at  the trial  of Smart,  who  was convicted  of first

            degree  murder, conspiracy  to  murder and  tampering with  a

            witness.  Id. at 1200, 1202.  For their roles  in the murder,
                      ___

                                         -2-
                                          2

            Randall  and  Flynn are  currently  serving  prison terms  of

            forty-years-to-life, and Lattime is  serving thirty-years-to-

            life (each  with twelve years  deferred).  Cecelia  Pierce, a

            former student  intern of  Smart's  who had  known about  the

            murder plan  before it  was carried out,  eventually assisted

            the authorities  in securing  information leading  to Smart's

            arrest.   Id. at  1201-02.  Pierce  was not charged  with, or
                      ___

            convicted of, any crime related to the murder.1

                      In 1993, Lattime, Randall, Flynn and their parents,

            Naomi and Vance Lattime, Sr., Patricia and Frank Randall, and

            Elaine  Flynn, filed a  lawsuit in New  Hampshire state court

            alleging  that   Winnacunnet  was  negligent  in  hiring  and

            supervising   Smart.     They   claimed   that  Winnacunnet's

            negligence  resulted  in  "inappropriate   relationships  and

            dangerous effects"  and caused  Smart to commit  various acts

            that, in turn, led to:

                      injuries  including  but  not limited  to
                      emotional  distress,  mental instability,

                                
            ____________________

            1.  The  facts at  trial,  see Smart,  622  A.2d at  1200-02,
                                       ___ _____
            established that Smart  became involved sexually with  Flynn.
            During the affair, Smart  told Flynn that they would  have to
            kill her husband if their relationship was to continue.  They
            planned  the murder in detail,  and Smart frequently spoke to
            Pierce of the plans.  Flynn enlisted the help  of Randall and
            Lattime after  his first  attempt at murdering  Gregory Smart
            failed.  On the day of the murder, Flynn, Randall and Lattime
            (with  another boy)  drove to  Smart's empty  residence, and,
            while Lattime waited in the  car, Flynn and Randall ransacked
            the  home to  create  the appearance  of  a burglary.    When
            Gregory Smart returned home, Flynn and Randall forced  him to
            his  knees, and  while Randall  held his  head down  at knife
            point, Flynn shot him once in the head.

                                         -3-
                                          3

                      physical  incarceration,  impairment   of
                      judgment, thereby causing them  to suffer
                      criminal responsibilities, incarceration,
                      irreparable harm through loss of liberty,
                      lost earnings, earning capacity,  loss of
                      education  by and  through [Winnacunnet],
                      financial  loss,  separation of  Students
                      from  their parents  and family,  loss of
                      consortium  by  the   parents,  loss   of
                      consortium  by the Students, etc.; all to
                      the damage of the plaintiffs.

                      In a  separate state  action, Pierce sued  SAU #21,

            the entity  that oversees the operations  of Winnacunnet High

            School,2 alleging  that it was negligent  in hiring, training

            and  supervising  Smart.   Pierce  claimed  that the  alleged

            negligence  caused  her "loss  of  education,  loss of  past,

            present and future earnings,  loss of reputation and standing

            in the  community, and  mental  anguish."3   Neither writ  of

            summons4   in  the  underlying   state  actions  specifically

            mentioned the murder of Gregory Smart.

                                
            ____________________

            2.  Interestingly, Pierce  named only SAU #21  as a defendant
            while  the  other  students  and  their  parents  named  only
            Winnacunnet.   Both  actions  allege,  inter alia,  negligent
                                                   _____ ____
            hiring/employment  although it  appears from the  record that
            SAU  #21 is  the entity that  hired Smart.   In  any case, no
            party has raised  any issue in this regard to us, and because
            the policies  issued  to  SAU  #21  list  Winnacunnet  as  an
            additional insured, we treat the present coverage question as
            unaffected  by   the  difference  in   the  underlying  named
            defendants.

            3.  At oral argument, the parties informed us that Pierce has
            received $9,000 in settlement of her claim.

            4.  In New  Hampshire,  a  writ  of summons  is  the  initial
            pleading in a civil  action at law.  For  simplicity, we will
            refer to this pleading as a "writ."

                                         -4-
                                          4

                      Winnacunnet   and   SAU  #21   (collectively,  "the

            School")  turned to  National Union  to defend  and indemnify

            them in  the state actions under  consecutive "School Leaders

            Errors and Omissions" insurance policies, issued for one-year

            periods  beginning November  17, 1990  and 1991.   Under  the

            policies, National  Union was obligated to  defend any action

            and  pay damages resulting from  "any Wrongful Act (as herein

            defined)  of the  Insured or  of any  other person  for whose

            actions the  Insured is  legally responsible."   The policies

            defined "Wrongful Act"  as "any actual  or alleged breach  of

            duty,  neglect, error, misstatement,  misleading statement or

            omission committed solely in the performance of duties."

                      National  Union  declined   coverage,  citing   the

            following policy exclusions:

                      This policy does not apply:

                      (a)  to  any claim involving  allegations
                      of fraud, dishonesty  or criminal acts or
                      omissions; however, the Insured  shall be
                      reimbursed  for  all amounts  which would
                      have been collectible  under this  policy
                      if such allegations are  not subsequently
                      proven;

                      (b)  to any  claims  arising  out of  (1)
                      false arrest,  detention or imprisonment;
                      (2)  libel,  slander  or   defamation  of
                      character;  (3)  assault or  battery; (4)
                      wrongful entry or  eviction, or  invasion
                      of any right of privacy;

                      (c) to  any claim  arising out  of bodily
                      injury to, or  sickness, disease or death
                      of   any   person,   or   damage   to  or
                      destruction  of  any property,  including
                      the loss of use thereof.

                                         -5-
                                          5

                      Upon  National  Union's  denial  of  coverage,  the

            School  petitioned  the  New  Hampshire  Superior  Court  for

            Rockingham  County   for  a  declaratory   judgment  ordering

            National  Union  to  defend   and  provide  coverage  in  the

            students'   and   parents'   (the  "underlying   plaintiffs")

            lawsuits.    National  Union  removed the  action,  based  on

            diversity jurisdiction,  to the United States  District Court

            for  the District  of New  Hampshire.   On cross  motions for

            summary judgment,  the  district court  denied  the  School's

            motions and granted National Union's motions, reasoning  that

            policy  exclusions (b)  and (c)  barred coverage  because the

            underlying claims  arose out of the  assault, battery, bodily

            injury and death of Gregory Smart.  The court did not discuss

            the applicability of exclusion (a).  The School appeals.

                                         II.
                                         II.
                                         ___

                                      Discussion
                                      Discussion
                                      __________

            A.  Summary Judgment Standard of Review
            _______________________________________

                      We  review a  grant  of summary  judgment de  novo,
                                                                __  ____

            viewing the facts  in the  light most favorable  to the  non-

            moving party  and drawing  all reasonable inferences  in that

            party's favor.   Barbour v. Dynamics Research  Corp., 63 F.3d
                             _______    ________________________

            32, 36 (1st Cir. 1995), cert.  denied, 116 S. Ct. 914 (1996).
                                    _____  ______

            Summary   judgment   is   warranted   when   "the  pleadings,

            depositions,  answers to  interrogatories, and  admissions on

            file,  together with the affidavits,  if any, show that there

                                         -6-
                                          6

            is no  genuine issue as  to any  material fact  and that  the

            moving party is  entitled to  judgment as a  matter of  law."

            Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

                      In this case, the summary judgment victor, National

            Union, bore the burden of proving lack of coverage.  See N.H.
                                                                 ___

            Rev. Stat.  Ann.   491:22-a (providing that,  in petitions to

            determine liability  insurance coverage, the burden  of proof

            is  on the insurer).  Where, as  here, "the moving party will
                                                        ______

            bear  the burden  of  persuasion at  trial,  that party  must

            support its motion with credible evidence -- using any of the

            materials specified in Rule 56(c) -- that would entitle it to

            a directed  verdict if not  controverted at trial."   Celotex
                                                                  _______

            Corp. v.  Catrett, 477  U.S.  317, 331  (1986) (Brennan,  J.,
            _____     _______

            dissenting on  other grounds).   In response,  the non-moving

            party must either submit a supportable request for additional

            discovery  time  or   "produce  evidentiary  materials   that

            demonstrate the  existence of  a 'genuine issue'  for trial,"

            id., and  in  so doing,  that  party "may  not  rest on  mere
            ___

            allegations or denials of his pleading."  Anderson v. Liberty
                                                      ________    _______

            Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986).
            ___________

            B.  Analysis
            ____________

                       The School contends  that exclusions (b) and  (c),

            which preclude coverage for "any claims arising out of  . . .

            assault  or battery"  and  "any claim  arising out  of bodily

            injury to . . . or death of any person," do not apply because

                                         -7-
                                          7

            the  underlying writs  alleged none  of these  excluded acts.

            Moreover, the School argues, the assault and death of Gregory

            Smart  need not be shown  to prove the  negligence claims and

            thus, they do not "arise out of" those acts.   National Union

            responds  that  the  exclusions  apply  because  the  alleged

            injuries,  which   constitute  a  critical  element   of  the

            negligence  actions, are  entirely related  to the  murder of

            Gregory Smart and its aftermath.5

                      New  Hampshire  courts  have   consistently  viewed

            "arising out of" as a "`very broad, general and comprehensive

            term .  . .  meaning originating  from or  growing out  of or

            flowing from.'"   Merrimack Sch.  Dist. v. National  Sch. Bus
                              _____________________    __________________

            Serv., Inc., 661 A.2d 1197, 1199 (N.H. 1995) (reading  phrase
            ___________

            broadly  in context  of indemnity  agreement which  is itself

            strictly  construed)  (quoting Carter  v. Bergeron,  160 A.2d
                                           ______     ________

            348,   353  (N.H.   1960)   (internal   alteration   omitted)

            (construing insurance policy)).  Indeed, the concept embodied

            in  the  phrase  "arising out  of"  appears  to  be something

            broader than the concept of proximate causation.  See Carter,
                                                              ___ ______

            160 A.2d at 353  (observing that injuries need not  have been

            "directly and  proximately caused by  the use of  the insured

            vehicle" to be deemed to "arise out of" that use).   Here, if

            the underlying plaintiffs' negligence claims arise out of any

                                
            ____________________

            5.  National  Union concedes  that  the policies  would  have
            covered the claims but for the exclusions. 

                                         -8-
                                          8

            of  the  excluded acts,  National  Union need  not  defend or

            indemnify the School against those claims.

                      While  a duty to defend6 may be found solely on the

            facts pleaded in  the cause  of action, a  court may  inquire

            into the  underlying facts "to avoid  permitting the pleading

            strategies, whims,  and vagaries of third  party claimants to

            control  the rights of parties to an insurance contract."  M.
                                                                       __

            Mooney  Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 618 A.2d
            _____________    __________________________________

            793, 796-97  (N.H. 1992); see also  Titan Holdings Syndicate,
                                      ___ ____  _________________________

            Inc.  v. City  of Keene,  898 F.2d 265,  271 (1st  Cir. 1990)
            ____     ______________

            (noting that a  court must  review the facts  alleged in  the

            underlying  suit  and  that   "the  legal  nomenclature   the

            plaintiff uses to frame  the suit is relatively unimportant")

            (discussing New  Hampshire law).   We find it  appropriate in

            this  case  to  look   beyond  the  conclusory  pleadings  to

            determine the applicability of the disputed exclusions.

                      In   their  depositions,  all   of  the  underlying

            plaintiffs state  that the reason they brought the action was

            their belief that  the school was  negligent in hiring  Smart

            and in supervising  her activities with the students.   Thus,

            not  surprisingly,  and  consistent  with  their  writs,  the

            underlying  plaintiffs unanimously conclude that the School's

                                
            ____________________

            6.  The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify,
            as an insurer may be obligated to defend a groundless lawsuit
            that  ultimately  does  not  give  rise  to  indemnification.
            United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Johnson Shoes, 461 A.2d
            __________________________________    _____________
            85, 87 (N.H. 1983).

                                         -9-
                                          9

            alleged breach of  duty caused  their harm.   Whether or  not

            that is true, however, does not resolve the dispositive issue

            in  this appeal:  whether  the underlying  plaintiffs' claims

            "arise out of" the murder of Gregory Smart.

                      An essential element of the negligence claim is the

            resulting  damage.  See Trudeau v. Manchester Coal & Ice Co.,
                                ___ _______    _________________________

            192  A. 491, 492 (N.H.  1937) (explaining that "actual damage

            is an  essential element"  of negligence actions  that "[are]

            brought not  to vindicate a right but to recover compensation

            for negligently  inflicted personal injuries").   Thus, where

            the  damages arise entirely  out of excluded  acts, the whole

            claim does as  well.  Cf. All Am. Ins. Co. v. Burns, 971 F.2d
                                  ___ ________________    _____

            438, 442  (10th Cir. 1992) (concluding  that alleged injuries

            in otherwise-covered negligence action triggered exclusions);

            Continental Casualty Co. v. City of Richmond, 763  F.2d 1076,
            ________________________    ________________

            1081  (9th   Cir.  1985)  (finding  no   coverage  where  the

            plaintiffs would have no claim for relief against the insured

            if the alleged misconduct "[had] not manifested itself in the

            injury").  Here, if  the underlying plaintiffs cannot prevail

            on  their negligence claims without showing how the murder of

            Gregory Smart  affected them,  then their claims  must "arise

            out of" the excluded acts of assault, battery, bodily  injury

            and death.

                      All of  the evidence in  the record  points to  the

            murder and its aftermath as the  source of the injuries.  For

                                         -10-
                                          10

            example, Pierce  testified in her deposition  that the reason

            for her  "loss of education" was that she missed many days of

            school  because   she  had  to  testify   at  Smart's  trial,

            eventually left  Winnacunnet during her junior  year, and had

            trouble getting  into college  because she was  uncomfortable

            asking  Winnacunnet  for help  with  her  applications.   She

            stated that her  "loss of earnings"  resulted from having  to

            quit her job  in order  to testify and  assist in the  trial.

            She  attributed her "loss of reputation" to the fact that she

            was  recognizable  from  her  involvement in  the  trial  and

            complained  that she lost friends  as a result.   Pierce also

            testified that her mental  anguish stemmed from the foregoing

            and acknowledged that if Gregory Smart had not been murdered,

            she would not have sued.

                      During Randall's deposition,  he asserted, "I'm not

            suing  the school because I'm in jail," but also stated "[i]f

            I never got caught for killing Greg Smart, I would have never

            brought  a lawsuit."  He  agreed that his  involvement in the

            murder and  subsequent incarceration were the  reasons why he

            (1) lost  his liberty  and employment opportunities,  (2) was

            unable  to finish  high school,  (3) was  separated from  his

            parents  and  fellow Winnacunnet  students, and  (4) suffered

            emotional pain.   While  he declared,  "I still  suffered the

            harm  whether I  got caught or  whether I got  away with [the

                                         -11-
                                          11

            murder]," that assertion  does not negate  the fact that  his

            injuries derived from his involvement in the murder.

                      Flynn testified  that he believed  that because  of

            the  School's negligence,  "something happened that  may have

            been  averted,"  and  acknowledged his  incarceration  is the

            reason why he suffers from being separated from  his parents.

            Lattime acknowledged  that neither  he nor his  parents would

            have brought the action  if he had not  been involved in  the

            murder.

                      The  parents'  deposition testimony  on  this issue

            also  reveals  that  the   injuries  were  related  to  their

            children's involvement in the  murder.  For example, Patricia

            Randall  testified that  she brought  the lawsuit  "[b]ecause

            what happened  to my son  I don't  want to happen  to anybody

            else" and  acknowledged that "what  happened" to her  son was

            his  incarceration for his involvement  in the murder.  Frank

            Randall  testified that  while he  thought Smart  should have

            been properly supervised, he  was also suing because his  son

            was incarcerated.  Elaine Flynn testified that her reason for

            bringing the suit was her belief that the School's negligence

            caused "the  situation that occurred."   Naomi Lattime stated

            that  "had [the  School]  followed  up  or done  anything  to

                                         -12-
                                          12

            investigate a faculty/student  relationship, .  . .  possibly

            this never would have happened or gone as far as it did."7

                      While the School's alleged negligence in hiring and

            supervising Smart could have caused the underlying plaintiffs

            injuries  unrelated  to the  murder,  nothing  in the  record

            supports the  existence of any  such injury.   The underlying

            plaintiffs' allocation  of blame  for their  suffering, while

            indicative of their belief that the School was at fault, does

            not  obviate the  fact that  the record  evidence establishes

            that  all of  the alleged  damages (e.g.,  harm from  loss of
                  ___                           ____

            liberty,  lost education and earnings, separation of students

                                
            ____________________

            7.  Further  support  for  the  conclusion  that  the alleged
            damages flow  entirely from the students'  involvement in the
            murder is found in  the notice of claim sent  to Winnacunnet,
            which states in part:

                      [Winnacunnet's    negligence]    directly
                      resulted in the manipulative relationship
                      with   Pamela  Smart,   which  ultimately
                      caused  the  loss   of  liberty  to  [the
                      students].  Moreover, their  parents lost
                      any  rights  of  parental enjoyment  with
                      their sons, including  but not limited to
                      loss   of   parental   rights,  loss   of
                      consortium,  etc.    [Lattime's  parents]
                      were also required  to expend  exorbitant
                      funds,  in  excess   of  $70,000.00,   in
                      defense   of  criminal   charges  brought
                      against their son.   As a result of these
                      damages, the  Plaintiff[s] demand maximum
                      amount  of   monetary  damages  allowable
                      under  the  Statutes  and/or  the  policy
                      limits of  the  insurance of  the  School
                      insurance policy, whichever is greater.

                                         -13-
                                          13

            and parents) originate from, or "arise  out of," the murder.8

            The School has  failed to rebut, with evidence  sufficient to

            raise  a genuine  issue  of material  fact, National  Union's

            showing   that  the   exclusive  source  of   the  underlying

            plaintiffs' injuries (and, therefore,  their claims) was  the

            murder of  Gregory Smart and  its attendant excluded  acts of

            assault, battery, bodily injury and death.

                      The  facts of this case are not unlike those in All
                                                                      ___

            Am.  Ins. Co. v.  Burns, 971 F.2d 438,  440 (10th Cir. 1992),
            _____________     _____

            involving a church bus  driver who was convicted  of sexually

            assaulting  two  children  whom  he was  transporting.    The

            victims sued the church and its board members alleging, inter
                                                                    _____

            alia, negligent hiring.   Id.   The board  members turned  to
            ____                      ___

            their insurer for defense  and indemnification, but the court

            found  applicable  a policy  exclusion  for  "personal injury

            arising out  of the  willful violation  of a penal  statute."

            Id. at 441.   The  court explained that  a negligence  action
            ___

                                
            ____________________

            8.  We note  that the  district court carefully  reviewed the
            School's motions to  reconsider its summary judgment  ruling,
            permitting the  parties to supplement their  pleadings on the
            very issue of the source of the claimed injuries.  The School
            failed  then to  produce evidence  establishing any  issue of
            material fact  on this question.   Finally, at  oral argument
            before this court, counsel for the School  stated that Pierce
            "felt much anguish" on the night of the murder, and thus, she
            suffered  whether or  not  the murder  was  committed.   This
            assertion is too little to late.   Not only is it unsupported
            by any  record evidence,  the purported "anguish"  stems from
            the murder  conspiracy and likely falls  within exclusion (a)
            which bars coverage for "any claim involving allegations of .
            . . criminal acts."

                                         -14-
                                          14

            depends  not  only upon  a breach  of  duty, "`but  also upon

            damage or injury  suffered by the plaintiff as  a consequence

            of the  violation of duty.'"   Id.  (quoting 57A Am.  Jur. 2d
                                           ___

            Negligence   142,  at 202-03 (1989)).  Thus,  the court found
            __________

            that the general negligence  allegations in the complaint did

            not compel  coverage because the claimed  injuries undeniably

            stemmed from the sexual assault.  Id. at 442.9
                                              ___

                      Our  resolution  of this  case  is  consistent with

            cases  in other  jurisdictions, relied  upon by  the district

            court, recognizing that an exclusion for  a claim arising out

            of an assault also bars coverage  for a claim that an insured

            negligently allowed an  assault to occur.   See, e.g., United
                                                        ___  ____  ______

            Nat'l Ins. Co.  v. Entertainment Group,  Inc., 945 F.2d  210,
            ______________     __________________________

            213-14  (7th  Cir.  1991) (applying  Illinois  law);  Audubon
                                                                  _______

            Indem. Co.  v. Patel, 811 F. Supp.  264, 265 (S.D. Tex. 1993)
            __________     _____

                                
            ____________________

            9.  The School relies on Durham City Bd. of Educ. v. National
                                     ________________________    ________
            Union Fire Ins.  Co., 426  S.E.2d 451, 455  (N.C. Ct.  App.),
            ____________________
            review denied, 431 S.E.2d 22 (N.C. 1993), involving identical
            _____________
            exclusions in a similar errors and omissions policy.  In that
            case,  a student  who allegedly  had been  raped by  a school
            coach sued the school board for, inter alia, negligent hiring
                                             _____ ____
            and  supervision.   Id. at  454.   In a brief  and conclusory
                                ___
            analysis, the court found that the exclusions did not bar the
            duty  to  defend  because  the allegations  were  for  "money
            damages  suffered as a result of . . . negligent supervision"
            and did not  include the rape as a  "necessary feature."  Id.
                                                                      ___
            at 456, 457.
                      We  find  this perfunctory  treatment unpersuasive.
            Unlike  that court, we are not content to decide the coverage
            issue  based solely  on the  allegations on  the face  of the
            writ.  Here, the underlying plaintiffs' damages, a "necessary
            feature" of their negligence claim, have all been shown to be
            inextricably related to the excluded acts.

                                         -15-
                                          15

            (applying Texas law); St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. 1401
                                  _______________________________    ____

            Dixon's  Inc.,  582 F.  Supp.  865,  867-68  (E.D. Pa.  1984)
            _____________

            (applying Pennsylvania law).   These cases held that coverage

            was barred  because the  excluded acts, assault  and battery,

            were the immediate  cause of  the injury giving  rise to  the

            action.

                      The School  argues that these cases  are completely

            inapposite  because  (1) unlike  those cases,  the underlying

            plaintiffs here are not the ones who suffered the assault and

            (2) in any event, the writs do not allege a negligent failure

            to  prevent assault.   We  are not  persuaded.   The School's

            first  "distinction"  runs  afoul  of  exclusion  (c),  which

            applies  in  the  case of  bodily  injury  or  death of  "any

            person."  As to  the second, from the evidence  pertaining to

            the  alleged  damages  here,  it  is  as  if  the  underlying

            plaintiffs,   though  styling   their  claims   as  negligent

            hiring/supervision, have alleged that the  School negligently

            permitted an assault to occur.  Cf. United Nat'l Ins. Co.  v.
                                            ___ _____________________

            The Tunnel, Inc., 988  F.2d 351, 354 (2d Cir.  1993) (denying
            ________________

            coverage where "plaintiff is  seeking to recover by `dressing

            up  the substance'  of  one claim,  here  a battery,  in  the

            `garments' of another, here  negligence").  Finally, it would

            make  little sense to bar  coverage for an  action brought by

            the  estate  of Gregory  Smart --  the  one who  suffered the

            bodily injury and death -- but find coverage for an action by

                                         -16-
                                          16

            those who actually inflicted the injury and who claim damages

            relating entirely to that event.

                                         III.
                                         III.
                                         ____

                                      Conclusion
                                      Conclusion
                                      __________

                      While  undoubtedly  there  are  cases  in  which  a

            negligent  hiring   or  supervision   claim  does   not  seek

            compensation  for damages  arising entirely  out of  excluded

            acts,  this  is  not  one  of  them.10    For  the  foregoing

            reasons,  the judgment  of  the district  court is  affirmed.
                                                                affirmed
                                                                ________

            Costs to appellee.
            Costs to appellee
            _________________

                                
            ____________________

            10.  Because we agree with the district court's well-reasoned
            conclusion that policy exclusions (b) and (c) barred coverage
            of the claims against the School, we need not reach the issue
            of the applicability of exclusion (a).

                                         -17-
                                          17