Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Todd

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there was no duty to defend claims “inextricably linked” with an alleged sexual assault under an intentional acts exclusion
• concluding that intentional acts exclusion barred coverage for claim of false imprisonment, even though false imprisonment was covered occurrence, because that action was simply means by which insured accomplished intentional plan to commit sexual assault
• concluding that intentional acts exclusion barred coverage for claim of false imprisonment, even though false imprisonment was covered occurrence, because that action was simply means by which insured accomplished intentional plan to commit sexual assault
• holding that courts should look to the “overall intentional plan of the insured” to determine whether a false imprisonment claim was excluded from coverage under an intentional bodily harm exclusion of a homeowner’s insurance policy
• finding the false imprisonment claim was inextricably linked to the insured’s overall intentional plan to sexually assault victim, therefore coverage for damages was excluded under policy’s intentional acts exclusion
• “An insurer seeking to escape its duty to defend has the burden of establishing that all parts of the cause of action fall clearly outside the scope of coverage.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).