#MeToo—Sexual Harassment and Insurance. Is Your Business Covered?
As more and more sexual harassment and sexual assault claims come to light in all realms, including Hollywood, the judiciary and Congress, it is important to ensure that your business is prepared to manage any such allegations with adequate insurance coverage.
February 28, 2018 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
As more and more sexual harassment and sexual assault claims come to light in all realms, including Hollywood, the judiciary and Congress, it is important to ensure that your business is prepared to manage any such allegations with adequate insurance coverage. This includes ensuring you have the proper insurance policies in place and that the exclusions of these policies do not bar coverage for these types of allegations.
These claims can arise in a number of ways. If your business is subject to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it could face a sexual harassment claim filed by an employee, alleging quid pro quo harassment, such as demanding a raise in exchange for a sexual act, or that there is a hostile work environment that interferes with the employee's performance, including the making of constant, unwanted sexual comments. An employee may also bring a lawsuit directly against the alleged perpetrator or a director or officer of the company for a tort claim arising from the harassment or assault. Or alternatively, a customer or other third party may bring suit alleging negligent hiring or negligent retention if an employee sexually assaults or harasses him or her.
A commercial general liability policy, which covers a business' liability for bodily injury and property damage arising out of an occurrence, may not cover these types of claims. The plaintiff's damages will likely be solely for emotional distress and will not constitute “bodily injury,” or the insurer will argue that no accidental “occurrence” has been alleged because the harassment was intentional. And even so, most commercial general liability policies exclude coverage for bodily injury to an employee arising out of his employment with the insured (employer's liability exclusion) or include an exclusion for employment-related practices, including wrongful termination or harassment. This is likely because this coverage is provided under separate insurance policies.
It is thus important to ensure that you have these additional policies in place, including a separate policy for employment practices liability insurance (EPLI), if your business faces these risks. EPLI policies cover an insured's liability for wrongful acts in the employment process. This includes coverage for wrongful termination, sexual harassment, retaliation and employment-related defamation, among other things. An EPLI policy will usually also cover directors and officers, management, and employees as insureds. However, it should be noted that claims of harassment brought by third parties that are not employees are not typically covered under EPLI policies. Thus, an insured will need to secure an endorsement providing this additional coverage for third parties. Or alternatively, this additional coverage may be provided as an add-on under a directors and officers liability insurance (D&O) policy. D&O policies cover the wrongful acts of directors and officers and potentially the organization for wrongful acts committed in their scope of their duties as directors and officers. Another source of potential coverage for an individual is under a personal homeowner's policy. While these policies typically exclude losses arising out of an insured's business pursuits, these policies should still be reviewed to determine whether coverage is available.
And even if you secure these additional coverages, it is important to review the provisions closely. Many policies are subject to an intentional acts exclusion providing that there is no coverage for intentional or willful acts or alternatively for the willful, intentional violation of a legal duty. This is problematic if the exclusion is interpreted broadly because most allegations of sexual assault or harassment are for willful, intentional behavior. Thus, any intentional acts exclusion should be removed or significantly narrowed. And lastly, it is important that policy periods and retroactive dates account for the applicable statute of limitation for these types of claims, particularly given how many years have passed since some of the alleged misconduct first occurred before they are reported.
In sum, it is important to review your insurance coverages carefully to ensure your business is prepared in the event of sexual assault or harassment claim, including ensuring you have adequate EPLI coverage and that no exclusions will bar coverage otherwise.
Walter J. Andrews, a partner at Hunton & Williams, focuses his practice on complex insurance litigation, counseling and reinsurance arbitrations and expert witness testimony.
Katherine Miller, an associate at the firm, focuses her practice on complex business litigation with an emphasis on insurance coverage counseling and litigation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 3Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
- 4Thursday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250