Background
Brianna Robinson alleged that she suffered injuries consistent with attempted vaginal penetration by a blunt object in 2000, when she was two years old and attending Room to Grow Preschool. She later sued John Abbington Thomas and Room to Grow for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent failure to rescue, alleging deficiencies in the preschool’s operation, hiring, training, and supervision. Evidence identified several possible perpetrators, including another child, Thomas’s teenage son, and Thomas himself, but no perpetrator was conclusively established.
Monroe Guaranty Insurance Company, which issued Thomas a commercial general liability policy supplemented by a day-care professional-liability endorsement, intervened for a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. After an earlier Kentucky Supreme Court remand directing a proper coverage analysis, the trial court again granted Monroe Guaranty declaratory and summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that the injury was intentional, not fortuitous, and was not covered by the professional-liability endorsement.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the denial of coverage under the CGL base policy, though on different reasoning from the Court of Appeals. An “occurrence” under that policy required an accident satisfying Kentucky’s fortuity analysis. Even assuming the relevant event was the insureds’ alleged negligence rather than the act of penetration, the insureds controlled whether they negligently failed to protect Robinson. The event therefore did not qualify as an occurrence under the base policy.
The court reversed as to the day-care endorsement. The endorsement separately covered injuries arising from rendering or failing to render professional services in operating the day care, and an initial grant of coverage under that language did not depend on whether the immediate harmful act was intentional. The Court of Appeals also improperly weighed evidence and made factual findings when concluding that Robinson’s injuries did not arise from the insureds’ professional services. The court remanded for the trial court to determine whether Robinson’s damages arose from rendering or failing to render day-care professional services and, if coverage is initially established, to address applicable exclusions and any exceptions.
Key Takeaways
- The CGL base policy did not provide coverage because the event causing Robinson’s injuries was within the insureds’ control and therefore was not a covered accident or occurrence.
- A deliberate harmful act does not, by itself, defeat an initial grant of coverage under the day-care professional-liability endorsement; intentionality may instead become relevant when applying exclusions.
- On remand, the trial court must separately analyze the endorsement’s coverage grant before considering exclusions, without resolving disputed facts or weighing evidence at summary judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that courts must analyze each distinct coverage grant in an insurance policy before turning to exclusions. Professional-liability endorsements may cover negligent services connected to an intentional injury even when the policy’s general-liability section does not.
The ruling also cautions courts against inferring criminal sexual intent when evidence viewed for the nonmovant supports the possibility that one child injured another, and against making factual findings when deciding summary judgment.