ALASKA HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT SALARIED CLAIMS ADJUSTER OWES GOOD FAITH DUTY TO POLICYHOLDER AND THAT CHILD MOLESTATION RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CLAIM Is WITHIN COVERAGE UNLESS CLEARLY EXCLUDED BY POLICY LANGUAGE
阿拉斯加最高法院就三个认证问题作出裁决：受薪理赔员对保单持有人负有诚信义务并可被列为被告；即使其他被保险人有故意行为，无辜保单持有人因疏忽被诉时仍可获赔；保单应按被保险人的合理期待解释。
C.P. v. Allstate Insurance Co. (Alaska Supreme Court--March 3, 2000) Dolan and Eleanor Lancaster were homeowners with an adult son, Harold, and his daughter living in the home. When the daughter's friend C.P. was staying overnight, C.R was assaulted by Harold. C.R and her parents sued the perpetrator and the Lancasters, alleging the elder Lancasters were negligent (in failing to disclose Harold's presence or his alleged propensity to assault children and in failing to watch over C.P.) and that this negligence was a contributing cause to C.P.'s injuries. When the Lancasters tendered the suit to Allstate under their homeowners policy, the insurer denied coverage, contending that C.P.'s injuries resulted from an intentional act by a member of the household. The underlying litigation was settled, with the C.P. family accepting an assignment of the Lancasters' rights under the insurance policy as part of the settlement. C.P. then sued Allstate in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. The federal court certified to the Alaska Supreme Court three questions for review. Under its rules of procedure, Alaska, like many other states, will under appropriate circumstances provide federal courts with rulings on questions of state law when presented with certified questions by a federal court. Question One asked whether a salaried employee in an insurance company claims department owed the company's insureds any duties and whether the insured could name a company adjuster as a tort defendant. The court answered the question yes, ruling that even though the adjuster was an employee, he was required to act in good faith toward the policyholder and was a proper individual defendant if the policyholder properly alleged a claim of failure to investigate (the allegation in the C.P case) or other bad faith conduct. Question Two asked whether under Alaska law the policyholder could obtain coverage even when another insured committed an intentional tort in cases when the innocent policyholders were accused of mere negligence by the third party victim. The C.P. court answered yes to this question as well. Using the approach, the C.P. court held that the adhesive nature of the standardized homeowners insurance policy required that it be interpreted in accordance with the objectively reasonable expectations of the policyholder, even where there is clear language to the contrary. …