Smith v. Animal Urgent Care, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• because of an intentional acts exclusion, there was no coverage for employer under commercial general liability policy when employee alleged employer wrongfully engaged in sexual harassment
• bodily injury, sickness, or disease in general commercial liability policy does not include purely emotional harm
• claim based on sexual harassment does not come within definition of “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” in insurance liability policy
• “purely mental or emotional harm that . . . lacks physical manifestation does not fall within a definition of ‘bodily injury’ which is limited to ‘bodily injury, sickness, or disease.’”
• “[T]he complaint is replete with allegations that [the insured] committed intentional acts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).