No Coverage for Claims Alleging that Insured Conspired to Falsely Accuse Ex-Husband of Child Sex Abuse

A court has ruled that claims that an insured engaged in a conspiracy to falsely accuse her former husband of child sex abuse were not covered by her insurance policy because they did not constitute an “occurrence” and because claims for emotional distress damages were not for “bodily injury.”  

The Case 

A woman who was sued for allegedly engaging in a conspiracy to falsely accuse her former husband of child sex abuse sought coverage for the three claims against her. The insurer argued that the policy it had issued to the woman did not provide coverage for the claims. 

The Court’s Decision

The court found that there was “no ambiguity” as to whether the claims against the insured involved intentional conduct, ruling that the allegations against her “all necessarily require[d] intentional conduct” on her part. Moreover, the court continued, the insured’s former husband’s alleged harm was “a naturally and reasonably foreseeable product of the alleged conspiracy.” Thus, it held, the insured’s alleged conduct was not covered by the clear and explicit language of the policy as her behavior did not constitute an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy. 

The court also found that the claim against the woman for intentional infliction of emotional distress did not meet the policy’s definition of “bodily injury,” which excluded “emotional distress” that was not “caused by physical injury.” Therefore, the court concluded that the insurer had no duty to defend the woman against this claim, either. 

The case is Country Mutual Ins. Co. v. Spencer, No. C12-5044 BHS (D. Wash. Nov. 8, 2012).