The court granted summary judgment to the school district, finding the insured was entitled to a defense against sexual abuse claims alleged against its employee. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 300, 2021 Ill. App LEXIS 622 (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 12, 2021).     The School District rented space to the Bays & Girls Clubs for after school programs. As part of the agreement, the District was named as an additional insured under the Club's CGL policy with West Bend.     In 2018 and 2019, the District and Club were named as defendants in several complaints filed by unnamed minors. The complaints alleged the minors were abused by the Club's instructor, Carlos Bedoya. The complaints alleged claims for willful and wanton hiring and retention of Bedoya (Count I) and wilful and wanton supervision of Bedoya (Count V). Each count also alleged that the District "knew or should have known" of the potential abuse.     The complaints were tendered to West Bend, who defended under a reservation of rights. West Bend then sued for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or to indemnify. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.     West Bend argued there was no occurrence and that the policy's physical abuse and sexual molestation liability endorsement barred coverage. The endorsement provided, in part: We will pay those sums the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of "physical abuse," "mental injury" or "sexual molestation" arising out of the negligent: . . .     (c) supervision; . . .     (e) or retention of any person for whom the insured is legally responsible.     The District argued that the willful and wanton theories raised against it did not defeat West Bend's duty to defend, because willful and wanton conduct is a form of negligence. The trial court granted the District's Motion and denied West Bend's Motion. The trial court found that willful and wanton conduct was "a heightened form" of negligent conduct.     On appeal, the District argued that the underlying complaints alleged that the District had a duty to exercise reasonable care and acted willfully and wantonly in the hiring, retention, and supervision of Bedoya. The complaints also alleged the District "knew or should have known" of the potential abuse. Thus, the underlying complaints alleged a negligence standard of care.     Comparing the allegations of the underlying complaints with the West Bend policy, the court of appeals found that the alleged facts potentially fell within the policy's coverage for certain negligent acts. Therefore, the trial court correctly awarded summary judgment on the issue of whether the underlying complaints willful and wanton allegations triggered a duty to defend. The allegations potentially alleged ordinary negligence. It was possible that, ultimately, the underlying plaintiffs could prove the elements of an ordinary negligence claim but be unable to establish the heightened mental state required to show willful and wanton misconduct/gross negligence. In such a case, the allegations would fall within the policy's coverage for certain negligent acts.    

from Insurance Law Hawaii https://ift.tt/3JmJntt