TIG Insurance Company issued a Workers Compensation and Employers Liability policy to Sweet Factory, Inc. Among Sweet Factory's operations was a retail store located in a Florida Mall and managed by Patrick Grady. In August of 1997, both Grady and Sweet Factory were named in a suit filed by a sixteen year old employee. The young worker claimed that he was sexually harassed by Grady. The suit also contained charges of negligent hiring, retention and battery.

Sweet Factory submitted a claim to TIG which was denied. The insurer contended that their policy excluded coverage for bodily injury involving any form of harassment which was intentionally caused. When TIG filed for a summary judgment to relieve it of having to defend or cover the claim, Sweet Factory filed a counter action, asking the court to find that TIG owed them both a defense and, if necessary, coverage for damages.

The trial court sent an appeal order to its circuit court. The order was a finding in favor of Sweet Factory. The higher court reviewed the exclusionary wording found in the TIG policy and held the opinion that the policy clearly barred coverage for harassment-related losses. Although the charges against Sweet Factory included items besides harassment, the appeals courts held that all of the damages stemmed from harassment. The trial court's order was reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter a judgment in favor of TIG.

TIG Insurance Company, Appellant v. Sweet Factory, Incorporated, Appellee. FlaDistCtApp. No. 99-117 Filed December 3, 1999. Reversed and remanded. CCH 2000 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 7195