Article ID: 211660b61a2de7d8f080bbf49d7aacf95f107e57dd569cce2cb4eeed7cdcfed7
Source ID: secondary:businessinsurance.com
Published At: -
Extraction Method: bs4_heuristic
Body Text
Insurer must cover mental health facility in sex harassment case: Court - Business Insurance Skip to content Register for free Search Search Log In Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Risk Management Cyber Risks Pricing Trends Mergers & Acquisitions Technology Sponsored Content WSIA RISKWORLD Workers Comp & Safety Workers Comp Cost Control Pain Management Workplace Safety International EMEA Asia-Pacific Latin America People Events BI Intelligence Top 100 Agents & Brokers Best Places to Work 2025 Lists Directories Insurance Pricing BI Stock Index Magazine Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe Women to Watch ALL INsurance Resources Risk Perspectives Sponsored Content Webinars White Papers Insurer must cover mental health facility in sex harassment case: Court by Richard Sine Claims Disputes Apr 8, 2026 A specialty insurer wrongfully denied coverage to a behavioral health company facing sexual misconduct allegations, a federal appeals court ruled. In Bramblett v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Co. the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found Monday that Allied World “resolved ambiguities in the Policy in its own favor rather than in favor of the insured as Washington law requires.” In the case, four former patients of American Behavioral Health Systems, a mental health facility in Spokane, Washington, alleged sexual harassment and abuse by a staffer. Allied World, a subsidiary of Fairfax, refused to defend the facility, arguing its sexual abuse exclusion barred coverage for the entire complaint. The appeals court disagreed. Allied’s policy covered losses from sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances but excluded sexual molestation and abuse. The key question was whether the exclusion swallowed the coverage entirely. The appeals court said no, finding that a complaint can contain both covered and excluded allegations, and that an insurer cannot use one excluded claim to escape its duty to defend the rest. The panel found that some of the plaintiffs’ allegations, including verbal harassment, excessive strip searches involving no touching, and unwanted hugging, were not excluded because, narrowly construed, both “sexual molestation” and “sexual abuse” require sexual contact and force. “Denying a duty to defend based on a questionable interpretation of policy language that gives the insurer rather than the insured the benefit of the doubt constitutes bad faith as a matter of law,” the panel wrote, quoting Washington precedent. The panel reversed a summary judgment siding with Allied. Allied now faces not just a defense obligation but potential treble damages and attorney fees under Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act, the ruling states. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Related News Baldwin Group teams up to launch construction captive April 8, 2026 Marsh Risk raises capacity in excess cyber facility April 8, 2026 Insurer must defend doctor accused of ‘fertility fraud’ April 8, 2026 Ski pass or pass on skiing? Lawsuit claims slopes are rigged April 8, 2026 NFP acquires Minnesota-based transportation agency April 8, 2026 National emphasis program for heat safety expires April 8, 2026 India plans $1.5B reinsurance cover for ships in conflict zones April 8, 2026 China to launch supply chain security rules April 8, 2026 Zurich, Cowbell launch cyber in Australia April 8, 2026 Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in Business Insurance is a singular, authoritative news and information source for executives focused upon risk management, risk transfer and risk financing. Never miss important news: Become a Business Insurance Online subscriber today Subscribe Now Information About Us Contact Advertise Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Copyright 2026. BUSINESS INSURANCE HOLDINGS Member, Beacon International Group, Ltd.
Metadata (JSON)
{
"score": 12.966666666666667
}