McLaughlin v. Witherspoon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that medical testimony regarding defendants’ pedophilia was irrelevant, because it “was primarily concerned with whether the insureds subjectively intended to injure their victims”
• noting possible conflict with other California appellate court decisions while finding subjective intent of adult is irrelevant where criminal sexual conduct is proven
• two cases; in one case insured fondled minor’s thigh and caused her to touch insured’s penis; in other case teacher had homosexual relationship with fourteen-year-old boy
• two cases: fondling thigh of six year-old female and causing her to touch insured's penis; and, teacher’s homosexual relationship with fourteen-year-old boy
• “ ‘[wjhere there is no possibility of coverage, there is no duty to defend’ [citation] and the insurer is entitled to declaratory relief if the underlying civil action will not resolve issues affecting coverage.”
• conviction for misdemeanor sexual abuse

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).