North Star Mutual Insurance Co. v. R.W.
1988 WL 117242, 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 1089, 431 N.W.2d 138 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurer has a duty to defend its insured against a claim if any part of that claim is arguably within the policy's scope of coverage. The negligent transmission of a disease can qualify as an 'accident' covered by a homeowner's policy if the resulting harm was unexpected and unforeseen by the insured, even if the act that caused the harm was intentional.
Facts:
- T.F. was insured under a homeowner's policy issued by North Star Insurance Company.
- In May 1984, T.F. and R.W., both adults, engaged in voluntary and consensual sexual intercourse at T.F.'s home.
- Later that same month, R.W. was diagnosed with genital herpes.
- R.W. alleged that T.F. negligently transmitted the disease to her through their sexual contact.
- After R.W. requested he seek a medical exam, T.F. learned that he has herpes.
- T.F. affirmatively asserts that he was unaware he had herpes at the time he and R.W. engaged in intercourse.
Procedural Posture:
- R.W. filed a lawsuit against T.F. alleging negligent transmission of herpes.
- T.F. tendered the defense of the lawsuit to his homeowner's insurer, North Star Insurance Company.
- North Star declined to provide coverage or a defense for T.F.
- North Star then filed a declaratory judgment action in a state trial court against T.F. to determine its obligations under the insurance policy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of North Star, ruling it had no duty to defend T.F.
- T.F. (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota, with North Star as the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a homeowner's insurance policy, which covers bodily injury caused by an 'occurrence' defined as an accident, create a duty for the insurer to defend its insured against a claim of negligent transmission of herpes through voluntary, consensual sexual intercourse?
Opinions:
Majority - Foley, Judge
Yes. An insurer has a duty to defend its insured against a claim of negligent transmission of a venereal disease when the claim is arguably within the scope of policy coverage. The court reasoned that the duty to defend is broader than the duty to pay, requiring defense if any part of the claim is 'arguably' covered. The policy defines 'bodily injury' to include 'disease,' which undisputedly includes herpes. The policy covers injuries caused by an 'occurrence,' defined as an 'accident.' Citing Hauenstein, the court defined an accident as an 'unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned happening or consequence.' Even though the act of intercourse was intentional, the result (transmission of disease) could be accidental if T.F. was unaware he had herpes. The court distinguished this case from those involving sexual assault on minors or vulnerable adults where intent to injure is inferred as a matter of law, declining to infer such intent here where the claim is for negligence between consenting adults. Finally, the court rejected the public policy argument against coverage, noting that insurers are free to write specific exclusions for sexually transmitted diseases into their policies if they wish to avoid such liability.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the term 'accident' in an insurance policy focuses on the unintended and unforeseen nature of the resulting injury, not the intentionality of the underlying act. It establishes a precedent in Minnesota that the negligent transmission of a disease can be a covered 'occurrence,' thereby triggering an insurer's duty to defend. This ruling shifts the burden onto insurance companies to either defend such negligence claims or explicitly exclude coverage for sexually transmitted diseases, potentially broadening coverage for policyholders in an emerging area of tort law.
