Taxi Driver's Sexual Abuse of Passenger Is Intentional Act, Not Accident as Required by Auto Insurance Policy; No Coverage
阿拉斯加最高法院裁定，出租车司机性侵乘客是故意行为，不属于汽车保险单定义的“意外事故”，因此保险公司无需赔付。
Kim v. National Indemnity Co., 6 P.3d 264 (Alaska Supreme Court--August 11, 2000) Alaska's highest court recently added the state to the list of jurisdictions that have taken a hard doctrinal line against coverage of sexual under common liability policies such as automobile, homeowners, or general liability insurance. Since the 1980s, child and other sexual claims appear to have been more frequently litigated, resulting in claims against liability insurers. Despite the unsavory aspects of these cases, tortfeasors (or their victims in cases in which the policy benefits have been assigned or in states where the third party may proceed directly against an insurer) have argued that the resulted from negligent supervision or structure or was the product of an unreasonable impulse or was not intended to cause harm. Where the policyholder is an entity that is only vicariously liable, claimants have had some success arguing that the insured's liability stemmed from negligence rather than volitional wrongdoing with intent to injure. Even in these cases, however, an employee or agent of the vicariously liable policyholder is often an insured, triggering the bar to coverage for injuries or intended from the standpoint of the Where a claimant policyholder is the active tortfeasor, insurance companies have had great success in defeating claims for The Kim case now puts Alaska squarely within this line of cases. Kim, a taxicab driver, sexually abused a minor who was a passenger in Kim's cab. When the minor's mother sued the cab driver, Kim looked to his automobile insurer for coverage. 6 P.3d at 266. The insurer disputed coverage and prevailed before both the trial court and the Supreme Court, which summarized the policy as follows: At the time of the incident, Kim was insured under a commercial automobile insurance policy from National Indemnity Company. Kim had purchased this policy--a $300,000 single limit policy--to provide basic insurance for his taxi. The policy provides coverage for all sums an insured legally must pay as damages because of 'bodily injury' or 'property damage' to which this insurance applies, caused by an 'accident' and resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered 'auto' [emphasis added.] But the policy excludes coverage for '[b]odily injury' or 'property damage' expected or intended from the standpoint of the 'insured' [emphasis added]. It also excludes coverage for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the abuse or molestation by anyone of any person while that person is in the care, custody or control of any insured. …