Insurance Policies - The Difference A Word Can Make [2010-01-27]
by Donna Russo, Esq.
On January 27, 2010, the Appellate Division made the distinction between “an” insured and “the” insured in deciding the issue of whether there would be coverage for intentional or criminal acts. The case involved a mother who had no knowledge of the criminal acts of her son. The Court held that when a policy excluded coverage for intentional acts of “an”insured, all insureds are excluded from coverage even if there was no direct wrongdoing by an insured. In this case, the mother was sued on the theories of vicarious liability and negligent hiring and retention. The Court held the result would be different if “the” insured was used in the policy language. The Court found that using “the insured” excluded coverage only to the insured who committed the intentional or criminal act (the son) and that there would be coverage for the mother sued for vicarious liability and negligent hiring and retention. (D.R. v. Allstate Insurance Company, A-0280-08T1)