State Farm Doesn't Want to Defend Sandusky in Civil, Criminal Cases

, The Legal Intelligencer

   | 2 Comments

State Farm has asked a federal judge to declare it does not have to defend former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky in his ongoing criminal proceedings and that it does not have to defend or indemnify Sandusky in a civil suit filed against him in Philadelphia last year by an alleged abuse victim.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • J. Christian Sales

    But there is a way to trigger State Farm's coverage....

  • J. Christian Sales

    State Farm is correct. There is no coverage for the intentional acts of Sandusky. Most state Supreme Courts have ruled that there is no coverage for acts either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured. See Raby v. Moe, (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1990). In the Raby decision, the Court cited to KAG v. Stanford for the principle that injury to a minor should be expected when that minor is molested and that no coverage would be afforded under a homeowner's policy for such intentional acts. In KAG v. Stanford, the insured sexually molested his granddaughter and the Wisc. Court of Appeals ruled no insurance coverage.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202563892852

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.