Westfield Insurance v. Hill

How courts have described this case

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

• finding sexual molestation exclusion barred coverage even though the injuries were “frame[d] ... in the language of negligent supervision and failure to warn”
• “subjective beliefs of the [insured] are not relevant to the applicable standard for determining whether an insurance policy provision is ambiguous”
• efficient and predominating cause of the injury'was acts of molestation where' the complaint did not allege tortious conduct that was “divorced from [the molester’s] actions” or “assert any claim for damages ... independent of the injuries caused by [the molester’s] actions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).