Molestation Case Brings New Ruling
SAN FRANCISCO — A teacher convicted of sexually molesting a student may also be sued for negligence arising from any non-sexual behavior that may have led to the molestation, the state Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
The 6-1 decision further defines the role of insurance companies in defending policyholders in molestation cases. In 1991, the Supreme Court said that a child victim of molestation cannot collect insurance damages because “willful wrongs†are not covered by insurance.
But citing the earlier case, the court on Thursday drew a distinction between harassment that occurs within the context of sexual molestation and the molestation itself.
Teacher Gary Lawrence Lee was convicted of molesting 13-year-old Barbara B., a student at Kramer Junior High School in the Placentia Unified School District. Her parents additionally sued alleging injuries caused by Lee’s intentional and negligent actions.
Lee’s insurance company, Horace Mann, said Lee’s actions weren’t covered because the harm was done to Barbara B. in the course of the molestation, for which Lee was convicted.
However, the Supreme Court said that the non-sexual actions can be separated, and viewed as negligence, thereby requiring the insurer to defend against claims. The case was returned to Orange County Superior Court.
“We do not sanction relabeling child molestation as negligence in order to secure insurance coverage for the plaintiff’s injuries,†Justice Edward Panelli cautioned in the majority opinion.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Armand Arabian disputed the distinction between molestation and other negligent behavior.
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
