When a primary general liability insurer and an umbrella liability insurer declined to defend a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against their insured, the insured provided its own defense and received a verdict in its favor. The insurers sought a summary judgment relieving them of any obligation to pay the insured's attorneys' fees and court costs.

The court limited its attention to whether or not the alleged acts of the insured's employee were within policy coverage for "occurrences".

The insured stressed that the definition of "occurrence" in the primary policy included damages "neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured." It also pointed to the following definition in the umbrella policy: "'Occurrence' means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in personal injury, property damage or advertising liability neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured."

The court cited numerous cases in point in which it was held that "identical or substantially similar definitions of 'occurrence' have been consistently interpreted as excluding coverage for intentional acts." It concluded that the claims for sexual harassment in this case "allege intentional acts that are not 'occurrences' for the purpose of policy coverage and there is no policy provision that creates a duty to defend under the facts...."

The motions of the insurers to relieve them from payment of the insured's attorneys' fees and costs were granted.

(OLD REPUBLIC INS. CO., Plaintiff v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, INC. ET AL., Defendants, Third-Party Plaintiffs v. UNIGARD SECURITY INS. CO., Third-Party Defendant. U.S. District Court, Northern District of TX, Wichita Falls Division. Civ. A. No. 7- 90-46-K. March 25, 1992. 786 F.SuPP. 629. CCH 1992 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 3789.)