Coit Drapery Cleaners, Inc. v. Sequoia Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “claims for mere negligence” are 19 barred by the workers’ compensation laws, and under such laws an employee of Coit 20 “may not sue for its allegedly negligent or improper supervision”
• rejecting any duty to defend or indemnify for noncriminal sexual harassment based on section 533, regardless of any potential negligence claim which could have been asserted on the underlying facts
• finding no duty to defend where the 19 conduct of defendants was inseparably intentional as “part of a consistent course of sexual 20 harassment of an unconsenting victim”
• claim against employer for negligent supervision in connection with alleged sexual harassment and wrongful termination of employee is barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity principle
• claim against employer for negligent supervision in connection with alleged sexual 17 harassment and wrongful termination of employee is barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity 18 principle
• in case with “no unresolved factual issues as to the intentionality of [defendant’s] harassing conduct,” where certain allegedly negligent conduct can be considered “inseparable” from the intentional sexual molestation or harassment, there is no duty to defend

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).