Court: Insurer Must Defend Teen Accused of Cyberbullying Classmate Before Her Suicide
A federal district court in Pennsylvania has ruled that an insurance company must provide a defense to a teenage boy who was sued by the parents of a girl who committed suicide after he allegedly cyberbullied her.
December 13, 2018 at 10:26 AM
5 minute read
This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
A federal district court in Pennsylvania has ruled that an insurance company must provide a defense to a teenage boy who was sued by the parents of a girl who committed suicide after he allegedly cyberbullied her.
The Case
As alleged in a lawsuit filed in a Pennsylvania state court by Julia Morath's parents against Zach Trimbur, a high school student, and his parents, before April 7, 2017, Trimbur “harass[ed], bull[ied], and/or cyberbull[ied]” an unnamed classmate, Jane Doe.
The state court lawsuit alleged that high school administrators informed Trimbur's parents of their son's behavior, and they “assured” the administrators they would “supervise, discipline, and/or control their son.” They “ensure[d]” the school administrators their son “would not engage in similar behavior in the future.”
Despite those assurances, the state court lawsuit alleged, Trimbur continued his conduct. At some unspecified time “in the days before April 7, 2017,” he texted his classmate, Morath:
“That's ok with me, so go back to your hellhole of a home and sit in your room and let some more guys come and penetrate you as you desperately reach out for any attention you can grasp because you are afraid of everything and anything. No one cares about your health issues and how you are an anorexic, bulimic, receding hairline c— who goes home and cuts herself every night to cope with the fact that guys will only ever do anything with you due to the fact that you are easy and that your own mother doesn't even love you. So then you have to go back to a hospital with all of your other freak show disabled people that don't know how to stick a piece of food in there [sic] mouths. You claim to cut people off but no one cares about you enough to give a shit. Also you should probably work better on covering up your scars located on EVERYWHERE on your fucking body because they make you look more repulsive than you already do. Best regards,”
The state court lawsuit alleged that Morath felt “distraught with severe mental and emotional pain and suffering.” She showed the text message to her parents, who then informed school administrators of the message on April 6, 2017. The high school suspended Trimbur the same day, but he allegedly “continued to harass, bully, and/or cyberbully” Morath after his suspension.
Morath died by suicide April 7, 2017.
The homeowners' insurance company for Trimbur and his parents, State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to provide a defense to Trimbur.
State Farm contended that “the alleged bodily injury sustained by Julia Morath did not arise from an 'occurrence'”—that is, an “accident”—triggering coverage under the policy, because Trimbur's “harassment, bullying and cyber-bull[y]ing [was] inherently non-accidental in nature.”
Trimbur countered that Pennsylvania law required that the court consider the foreseeability of the injury from his perspective, and that although he could not dispute sending the text message, Morath's death by suicide constituted an extraordinary intervening event far beyond anything contemplated in the text message and unforeseeable as to him.
The parties moved for judgment in their favor.
The District Court's Decision
The district court granted Trimbur's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In its decision, the district court explained that the Moraths, in their individual capacities and as co-administrators of their daughter's estate, sued Trimbur for negligence, as well as wrongful death and survival. They alleged that Trimbur's conduct was “unreasonable, negligent, grossly negligent, careless, and reckless and [he] intentionally breached his duty to exercise due care generally” and in various particular respects, including, among other things, his “fail[ure] to use his cell phone in a reasonable manner” and acting “with a reckless disregard to Julia Morath's health and safety.”
The district court decided that State Farm had to defend Trimbur because the negligence claim against him fell within the scope of the “occurrence” language in the State Farm insurance policy.
According to the district court, viewing the events from Trimbur's perspective, it could “not conclusively find” that death by suicide was “foreseeable from his cyberbullying” because suicide constituted an independent intervening act “so extraordinary as not to have been reasonably foreseeable by the original tortfeasor.”
The district court concluded that, from Trimbur's perspective, his classmate's death by suicide was “an accident,” and the Moraths' negligence claim fell within the scope of the State Farm policy.
The case is State Farm Fire and Casualty v. Motta.
Steven A. Meyerowitz is the director of FC&S Legal, editor-in-chief of the Insurance Coverage Law Report and founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc.
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
© 2025 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 AllJudge Tanks Prevailing Pittsburgh Attorneys' $2.45M Fee Request to $250K
5 minute readBest Practices for Conducting Workplace Investigations: A Legal and HR Perspective
9 minute readPlaintiff Argues Jury's $22M Punitive Damages Finding Undermines J&J's Talc Trial Win
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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