North Star Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, vs. Christopher Erickson, et al., Appellants., 2023 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-In a declaratory judgment claim case filed to determine insurance coverage, the district court correctly determined that the policies' definition of "bodily injury" precluded coverage for the negligence-related claims. The sexual-misconduct provision did not require an inquiry into the insured's subjective intent; the provision's plain language did not explicitly require intent, and the provision's examples of sexual misconduct did not create an implicit intent or motivation requirement The district court properly determined that the negligence, vicarious liability, and negligent-supervision-of-a-minor claims were not covered by the appellant's policies because the sexual-misconduct provision did not require the subjective intent to act sexually and because appellant's son's conduct was the direct cause of the alleged harms.