Breaking Barriers to Justice
deficient supervision — can be separated from the therapist's intentional acts sufficiently to trigger the employer's professional liability or general liability policy. That analysis begins with what the institution knew and when, and it requires the same early regulatory and personnel record investigation as any other institutional case.
framework: coverage clauses are construed broadly; exclusions are construed narrowly.
In multi-insured cases, Minkler v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, (2010) 49 Cal.4th 315, holds that an intentional acts exclusion combined with a severibility clause creates ambiguity as to coverage for the non-offending co-insured — and that ambiguity resolves in favor of coverage. Employment practices liability policies add another layer: designed to respond to harassment and discrimination claims, they often cover conduct that CGL policies exclude. In care facility cases, the EADACPA's independence from MICRA means the facility may carry distinct healthcare liability coverage that requires separate analysis. Early identification of every potentially applicable policy — CGL, umbrella, EPLI, professional liability, and any facility-specific coverage — is intake work, not discovery work. The complaint should be drafted with this coverage map in hand from the first version. Pleading only intentional tort against the individual perpetrator forecloses coverage and often forecloses recovery. Pleading negligent supervision, negligent retention, EADACPA violations, regulatory violations as negligence per se, and institutional knowledge-based theories — with facts specifically directed at what the institution knew and failed to do — opens the arguments that make these cases financially viable through summary judgment and beyond.
Drafting to Trigger Coverage: The Strategic Complaint
In both of these institutional contexts, one of the most consequential decisions happens before the complaint is filed. How you plead the case determines whether insurance responds. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., (2018) 5 Cal.5th 216, is the foundational authority: when a third party sues an employer for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision of an employee who intentionally injured that party, the claim can constitute an 'occurrence' (accident) under the employer's CGL policy. Because the negligent conduct of the employer — not the intentional act of the employee — is the insured event, the intentional acts exclusion does not automatically apply. This holding creates a direct path to CGL coverage in institutional cases that would otherwise appear closed. California Insurance Code section 533 governs the intentional acts exclusion. Outside the narrow category of inherently harmful acts, the exclusion requires a 'preconceived design to inflict injury.' Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co., (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865. The insurer bears the burden of proving willfulness. Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co., (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, established the governing interpretive
A Practical Framework for Getting There
Pulling this together into practice looks something like this. Read CVB correctly at intake. Before a case leaves the building because of delayed reporting, continued contact, or inconsistent recall, ask whether those facts have an explanation you could present to a
59
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM July/August 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs