AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

A former employee of a restaurant alleged that he was sexually harassed by his manager during his employment. The harassment included repeated lunch invitations, flirtatious touching, and explicit sexual comments. The restaurant's general liability insurer defended the claim under a reservation of rights and later settled the case for $20,500. The insurer subsequently sought a declaratory judgment to confirm that its policy did not cover the claim (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the employee, finding that the insurance policy covered the claim (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Insurance Company): Argued that the policy excluded coverage for injuries to employees and that the claim did not meet the policy's requirements for "bodily injury" or an "occurrence" defined as an accident (para 5).
• Defendant-in-Intervention-Appellee (Employee): Contended that the policy exclusions only applied to workers' compensation claims and that the insurer waived its right to deny coverage by issuing a different policy with explicit sexual harassment exclusions at another location (paras 9, 18).

Legal Issues

• Does the general liability insurance policy exclude coverage for injuries to employees, including claims of sexual harassment?
• Should the insurer's issuance of a different policy with explicit sexual harassment exclusions at another location constitute a waiver of its right to deny coverage under the policy in question?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the insurance company (para 19).

Reasons

Per Robinson J. (Bosson C.J. and Armijo J. concurring):

• The Court held that the employee exclusion in the insurance policy unambiguously excluded coverage for injuries to employees arising out of and in the course of employment, including claims of sexual harassment. The exclusion was not limited to workers' compensation claims, as argued by the employee (paras 9-13).
• The Court rejected the argument that the phrase "arising out of employment" should be interpreted in the same manner as in workers' compensation law. It emphasized that the policies underlying workers' compensation law differ from those governing insurance contracts (paras 14-16).
• The Court noted that specific Employment Practices Liability Insurance policies are available to cover claims such as sexual harassment, but the general liability policy in this case did not provide such coverage (para 17).
• The Court dismissed the waiver argument, finding that the policy in force at the relevant location and time governed the case. The issuance of a different policy with explicit exclusions at another location did not affect the interpretation of the policy at issue (para 18).