NO INSURER DUTY TO DEFEND CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY EXCLUDED CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS

Commercial General Liability	Duty to Defend
Civil Rights Exclusion

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed litigation against Tri-Spur Investment Company (Tri-Spur), claiming violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It sought redress for unlawful sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation against a class of women. One woman in the class action, Crystle Collins (Collins), filed a subsequent, amended complaint in intervention.

Tri-Spur tendered defense to its insurer, AMCO Insurance Company (AMCO). AMCO initially denied coverage but later agreed to provide a defense, reserving the right to seek declaratory relief. AMCO filed for declaratory judgment, claiming no obligation to defend or indemnify Tri-Spur. Tri-Spur answered and claimed AMCO was obligated to defend the litigation and indemnify against resultant damages. Tri-Spur also moved to amend its answer to include a counter-claim against AMCO, alleging bad faith based on the filing for declaratory judgment. Both parties then filed for summary judgment. AMCO sought relief from any further obligation to defend and indemnify Tri-Spur. Tri-Spur asked for a declaration of AMCO's contractual duty of defense and indemnification. The district court granted AMCO's motion for summary judgment and Tri-Spur appealed.

The claims and relief sought were based on Title VII. Tri-Spur asserted that facts behind the action showed potential causes of actions under applicable policy coverages. Previous case law established precedent in this area that held that even if facts behind a complaint might disclose negligent acts, it was irrelevant. An insurance company does not have to look beyond the words of a complaint to determine if a possibility of coverage exists. The pleadings filed by the EEOC involved claims that were clearly excluded by the plain language of the policy and AMCO had no contractual duty to defend or indemnify against them. The language of the civil rights exclusion was not susceptible to more than one interpretation. The exclusion unambiguously excluded bodily injury to any person arising out of any federal, state or governmental civil rights violation or alleged violation. The plain policy language in this regard was clear and unambiguous.

The decision of the district court that AMCO had no duty to defend or indemnify Tri-Spur for claimed damages arising from alleged civil rights violations under the provisions of Title VII for sexual harassment and retaliation was affirmed.

[8066] AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, an insurance corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TRI-SPUR INVESTMENT COMPANY, an Idaho corporation, a/k/a/ Tri-Spur Investments, Inc., and John Bowen, an individual, Defendants-Appellants. Idaho Supreme Court, Docket No. 29551. Filed October 30, 2004. Affirmed. 2004 CCH Personal and Commercial Liability Cases. Paragraph 8066.