A “joint obligations” provision in an Aiken County couple’s insurance policy means the insurer will not have to defend the parents in a negligence suit brought by a woman whose daughter was sexually assaulted by the couple’s son.
AmyMelissa Davis and her minor daughter “K.K.” were living with Roosevelt and Pearl Tilmon in 2009 when the Tilmons’ grown son, Anthony, thrice sexually assaulted K.K. Anthony Tilmon was convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison. Davis sued Roosevelt and Mona in federal court for negligence, gross negligence, recklessness or carelessness, and breach of fiduciary duty.
Allstate Indemnity Company had issued a homeowners’ policy to the Tilmons in 2008. The policy provided, among other things, liability protection and listed any relative or dependent living in the house as an insured person. The policy explicitly excluded coverage for any losses caused by intentional or criminal acts and contained a “joint obligations” provision that its terms imposed joint obligations on all insured persons, meaning that acts of one insured person would be binding on all the others.
Allstate, citing the joint obligations provision, asked the court to declare that it had no obligations to defend the Tilmons in court or to pay out in the event that they were found liable. Davis, presumably more concerned about the compensation aspect, opposed the motion. Davis argued that the provision was ambiguous and should be read only to require all insured persons to comply with the same policy obligations as the named insured, instead of imposing joint liability for the criminal acts of one person.
U.S. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs said that South Carolina courts had never interpreted an insurance policy containing a joint obligations provision, but that other courts had interpreted identical provisions and found that such provisions render the criminal acts exclusion applicable to claims for negligence against other insured persons.
Childs agreed with that reasoning and ruled that Anthony’s criminal acts were binding on all other insured persons, which clearly included Roosevelt and Mona. As such, Allstate had no duty to defend or compensate the Tilmons.
“The language in the joint obligations provision is plain and unambiguous—where one insured’s acts excluded coverage, those acts are binding upon the other insured and preclude coverage for any claims against the other insured as well,” Childs wrote. “[The provision] attributes the sexual battery committed on K.K. by Anthony Tilmon to [Roosevelt and Mona.]”
Alfred Cox and Janice Holmes of Gallivan, White & Boyd in Columbia represented Allstate. Todd Johnson and Brett Lancer of Johnson, Johnson, Whittle & Lancer in Aiken represented Davis.
The 14-page decision is Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Tilmon (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-070-14). A full opinion digest is available online at sclawyersweekly.com.
Follow David Donovan on Twitter @SCLWDonovan