Coverage dispute as to a claims-made insurance policy issued to school district. Declaratory judgment complaint filed, seeking a determination that insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify District in suit filed by a former student, "Doe 4", who alleged that he had been sexually abused on multiple occasions by a male school official. Several other former students (also "Doe") filed suits with similar allegations about the same school official (who had been a teacher, counselor, coach, and student council sponsor). Insurer appropriately considered extrinsic evidence in denying coverage under the policy. Insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify against a claim first made against District during the policy period. The Doe actions, collectively, fall within the policy's definition of a single claim. The Doe 4 action reasonably falls under the single claim provision, because it directly resulted from the same or related series of facts and circumstances as the prior Doe actions. The overriding common event among Doe actions is causal connection of alleged misconduct of 3 District officials in failing to take action to protect students which allowed for repeated sexual victimization of the Doe plaintiffs. Policy modifications and exclusions indicate that parties never intended to provide coverage for a claim such as Doe 4 claim. (MOORE and VAUGHAN, concurring.)
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance