No Insurance Coverage Provided for a Sexting Teacher Under his Homeowners Policy

May 8, 2017

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma affirmed a lower court decision that a homeowners policy did not provide coverage for claims asserted in a civil action brought against the defendant by a former student. The case is State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Dawson, No. 16-6356 (10th Cir. May 3, 2017).

 

The defendant was a math teacher at a high school in Oklahoma. During the time he was employed as a teacher he engaged in inappropriate communications with one of his students. He requested and received nude pictures of the student via text messages, and was criminally prosecuted. The student withdrew from high school and received her diploma through an online institution. The student brought action against the defendant seeking damages for invasion of privacy, intrusion on seclusion, negligence, and negligence per se. The defendant tendered the defense of the claims to the insurance company through which he had a homeowners policy, State Farm. State Farm provided a defense, but reserved its rights to contest coverage at a later date. State Farm filed the action at hand seeking a declaration that the homeowners policy that the defendant had in place did not provide coverage for the claims made against the defendant.

 

The Court decided that the homeowners policy unambiguously provided no coverage for the claims asserted against the defendant, because the claims against the defendant did not seek to recover for bodily injury or property damage as defined as covered damage under the policy. The policy states that “If a claim is made or a suit is brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies” they will pay up to the legal limit of liability and provide a defense for their insured. The defendant argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact when considering the physical injury claim because the plaintiffs mother testified that she was “not sure” if the student had suffered any physical injury. The Court found that there was nothing in the testimony that could support a finding of physical injury to the student. The defendant also argued that even if there was no claim for physical injury, there was a property damage in the students' loss of her ability to attend a brick and mortar high school. The Court found that this damage was not property damage as it was not damage to “tangible property”, stating that “the right to a public education is intangible”.

 

The Tenth Circuit determined that the plain language of the homeowners policy in place excluded coverage for defense or indemnification of the defendant by his insurer, State Farm.

 

Editor's Note: The defendants' argument that a public education is tangible property, may have seemed valid on its face. A public school is a tangible physical setting, where students are required to use tangible materials such as books, notebooks, pencils and pens, but that does not change the Court's conclusion that an education cannot be felt, has no physical form, and cannot be stolen or transferred to another person. Because an education is “intangible” there was no loss of tangible physical property in this claim, and the policy did not provide coverage for the injuries suffered in this case.