Insurer's Duty to Defend: Meadowbrook V. Tower Ins. Co
明尼苏达州最高法院审理了一起性骚扰和歧视案件，判定商业一般责任险不覆盖雇佣相关索赔，但保险人仍需为整个案件辩护，因为其中一项诽谤索赔在承保范围内。
INSURER'S DUTY TO DEFEND Meadowbrook v. Tower Ins. Co. 559 N.W.2d 411 (Minnesota Supreme Court Feb. 6, 1997) Meadowbrook was sued by four woman employees alleging sex discrimination, sexual harassment, race discrimination, violations the state whistleblower's statute, reprisals for reporting whistleblower violations, intentional infliction emotional distress, negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent infliction emotional distress, assault, battery, wrongful termination, violation contracts created by promissory estoppel, and defamation. When all layers the complaint were peeled away, the Minnesota courts ultimately determined that only the defamation fell within the coverage the insured commercial general liability policy. The whistleblower claims were foreclosed on statutory grounds, the negligence-based claims did not create a recognized cause action, and the intent-based claims were excluded by the intentional act exclusion the policy. The Court also ruled that the sexual harassment and discrimination claims were removed from coverage by the exclusion for matters arising out and in the and his employment by the insured. Originally designed to remove workers'compensation claims from CGL coverage, the broad language this exclusion was interpreted by the Minnesota court, as it has by other courts, to preclude coverage for employment-related claims. According to the Court, plaintiffs' claim asserted that the environment in which the plaintiffs worked had become hostile. It is incongruous to hold that such a can anywhere but in the and a plaintiffs' [sic] Although the Court takes an uncontroversial view the breadth the term arising under, its construction is arguably too expansive in favor the insurer. The employment exclusion in the policy at issue required that an excluded both arise out of employment and be in the course and scope employment. However, some the harassment complained included telephone calls from the employer to the employee at her home outside working hours. The correct answer to this type coverage interpretation may hinge on the nature such contacts outside the workplace and their nature. For example, if the manager sees the worker on the street on a Saturday and berates her job performance in a sexist manner, this is arguably job-related and excluded by the standard CGL employment exclusion. But if the manager instead makes repeated attempts to seduce or intimidate the worker outside the workplace or workweek, this sort sexual harassment arguably falls outside the and employment even though its impact is obviously felt in the workplace. In Meadowbrook v. Tower, the co-defendant was the sole shareholder and president the insured company. In cases where the company is a sole individual, this may argue for being within the the exclusion. Insurers may argue that in such companies, everything the boss does is workplace-related for purposes the employment exclusion. Insureds and claimants will argue that corporate separateness should be observed and that the boss's sexual transgressions do not automatically become job-related merely because he is the boss. For the most part, however, other cases have agreed with Minnesota in reading the employment exclusion broadly and precluding sexual harassment and discrimination coverage under the CGL. The insurer admitted the defamation was covered under the personal injury provisions the policy and retained counsel for these claims but suggested independent counsel for the noncovered claims in light a possible conflict interest if a single law firm is utilized. All counsel fees for defense were the responsibility the insurer under the hornbook rule that the liability insurer's duty to defend extends to the entire case if a single falls within coverage. …