Farmers Insurance Group v. County of Santa Clara
906 P.2d 440 | California Supreme Court | 1995
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A California court ruled that Santa Clara County did not have to pay legal costs or indemnify a deputy sheriff accused of sexual harassment by coworkers. The court found that sexual harassment—specifically unwanted touching and sexual propositions directed at specific employees—falls outside the scope of employment. This means employers are not automatically required to cover defense costs for employees whose misconduct is personal rather than job-related. For construction subcontractors, this clarifies that indemnification clauses don't protect workers engaged in deliberate harassment or misconduct unrelated to their actual job duties.
Key Takeaways
- •Indemnification doesn't cover personal misconduct. If you're sued for harassment or intentional wrongdoing unrelated to your job, your employer or insurance likely won't pay your legal bills.
- •Courts distinguish between job-related risks and deliberate targeting of individuals. Harassment is treated as personal conduct, not a typical workplace risk.
- •Review your indemnity agreements carefully. They typically exclude coverage for willful misconduct, gross negligence, and intentional acts—which includes harassment.
Sexual harassment is not a risk fairly regarded as typical of jail operations.
Frequently Asked Question
Will my company's indemnity insurance cover me if I'm sued for harassment on a job site?
No. Courts have ruled that indemnification doesn't apply to personal misconduct like harassment, even if it happens at work. Harassment is considered outside the scope of employment because it's not a typical job risk. You'd likely be personally liable for legal costs and damages.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.