Minnesota School Bd. Ass'n Ins. Trust v. Dahl
| Decision Date | 22 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. C4-97-141,C4-97-141 |
| Citation | 566 N.W.2d 374 |
| Parties | 119 Ed. Law Rep. 1185 MINNESOTA SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION INSURANCE TRUST, Respondent, v. Michael DAHL, et al., Defendants, P.W., a minor, by James and Nancy Weihrauch, her parents and natural guardians, and James and Nancy Weihrauch, individually, Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
An insurance plan that provides coverage for acts committed by a teacher while performing duties as a teacher does not cover alleged sexual contacts with a minor student, even if such contacts have occurred on school premises and during school hours.
Richard J. Chadwick, Richard A. Koehler, Chadwick & Associates, Chanhassen, for respondent.
Patrick K. Horan, Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd., Woodbury, for appellants.
Considered and decided by SHORT, P.J., and LANSING and KLAPHAKE, JJ.
Respondent Minnesota School Board Association Insurance Trust (the trust) brought this declaratory judgment action to determine its obligations under an insurance plan. The district court granted the trust's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plan did not require it to defend a teacher against charges of intentional and unlawful sexual contacts with a minor student. We affirm.
Michael Dahl was employed by ISD # 625 as a teacher. P.W., a minor, was a student in Dahl's class and sometimes worked for Dahl as a student aide. P.W. and her parents sued Dahl and ISD # 625, alleging that Dahl had engaged in intentional and unlawful sexual contact with P.W. while acting within the course and scope of his employment.
ISD # 625 and Dahl were covered by the trust's insurance plan. The plan stated generally: "We will cover your employees while they are acting within the scope of their duties." The plan stated as a "special condition":
We will provide liability protection against claims for harm caused by something a teacher does or does not do while
performing his or her duties as a member of your teaching staff. * * * [T]his agreement provides broad liability protection for your teachers * * *.
The district court concluded that the plan did not require the trust to defend Dahl against the claims by P.W. and her parents. P.W. and her parents appealed. 1
Does the plan provide coverage for acts of sexual misconduct allegedly committed by Dahl while performing his duties as a teacher?
A district court may grant summary judgment when the record shows "that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn.1993) (citation omitted). On appeal, this court "view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted." Id. (citation omitted). The interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Kolby v. Northwest Produce Co., Inc., 505 N.W.2d 648, 650 (Minn.App.1993). If a claim is not "clearly outside coverage," an insurer has a duty to defend. Prahm v. Rupp Const. Co., 277 N.W.2d 389, 390 (Minn.1979).
The trust plan provided coverage for employees while "acting within the scope of" their duties. But appellants do not claim that Dahl committed the alleged acts while "acting within the scope of" his duties. Rather, appellants cite a more specific provision covering a teacher for acts committed "while performing his or her duties" as a teacher.
Appellants argue that Dahl's alleged acts against P.W. were committed "while" Dahl was performing his duties as a teacher. Appellants apparently believe the phrase "while performing" his duties is broader than the phrase "while acting within the scope of" his duties. We disagree.
When interpreting the phrase "scope of employment" for purposes of employer vicarious liability, the supreme court has concluded that an assault must be "related to the duties of the employee." Lange v. National Biscuit Co., 297 Minn. 399, 404, 211 N.W.2d 783, 786 (1973). In P.L. v. Aubert, 545 N.W.2d 666, 668 (Minn.1996), the court concluded that acts of sexual misconduct by a teacher were not related to the duties of the teacher and therefore were not within "scope of employment" for purposes of vicarious liability.
We are unpersuaded by appellants' argument that although the "scope of duties" language in the trust plan limits coverage for ISD # 625 to situations where a teacher's acts are related to his duties, the language "while performing" his duties does not similarly limit coverage for ISD # 625's teachers. Nowhere in the plan is there an expression of intent to make coverage for a teacher's acts broader than coverage for ISD # 625 itself, based on those same acts.
Appellants cite evidence that some of Dahl's alleged acts occurred on school grounds and during school hours. Although some of Dahl's alleged acts may have occurred "while" he was on school premises and "while" school was in session, the plan's use of the term "while" does not cover all acts of a teacher simply because the acts occur within the school's physical and temporal boundaries. The term "while" cannot be read to the exclusion of the remainder of the phrase, which provides coverage for a teacher's acts "while performing" his duties. See Cement, Sand & Gravel Co. v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 225 Minn. 211, 216, 30 N.W.2d 341, 345 (1947) (); West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 419 N.W.2d 848, 850 (Minn.App.1988) (), review denied ...
To continue reading
Request your trial