Watchful policyholders are pushing back: the Ninth Circuit’s recent unpublished opinion says insurers can’t blanket-deny defence where some claims are conceivably covered, a practical shift that matters for schools, universities and employers facing mixed sexual-misconduct complaints.
Essential takeaways
- - Court rule: The Ninth Circuit applied the “potentiality” or “conceivably covered” standard, meaning an insurer must defend if any part of a complaint could fall within coverage.
- - Coverage split: Even when a complaint includes excluded sexual-abuse allegations, separate causes of action based on sexual-harassment allegations can trigger a defence obligation.
- - Narrowing exclusions: The panel refused to read “relating to” in the exclusion so broadly that it swallows affirmative coverage for harassment.
- - Bad-faith exposure: Denying a defence under these facts supported claims against the insurer for breach of contract and bad faith, and statutory unfair-practice liability.
- - Practical tip: Policyholders should contest blanket denials and emphasise the separable, conceivably-covered parts of a complaint when seeking representation.
Why this Ninth Circuit opinion matters now
The ruling is a tangible reminder that insurers can’t simply point to any excluded allegation and walk away from defending the entire suit. The most striking detail is the court’s sensory, practical reading: allegations don’t always meld into one indistinguishable blob. The panel found there were at least two plausible ways to separate the complaint into covered harassment claims and excluded abuse claims, so a defence was required.
This matters because many underlying suits against institutions and employers include a mix of claims , some plainly excluded, others clearly within affirmative coverage language. According to legal commentators on the ruling, that “conceivably covered” yardstick remains a powerful tool for policyholders who want their insurer to pick up defence costs while the litigation plays out.
How insurers tried to avoid defending , and why the court pushed back
Insurers argued that any claim “relating to” alleged sexual abuse should trigger the exclusion for the whole complaint. That’s an attractive shortcut for carriers: one exclusion, end of story. But the Ninth Circuit refused to read those words in an expansive, jurisdiction-swallowing way.
The panel instead looked at the ordinary meaning of the policy terms and the structure of the complaint. It noted that a factfinder could impose liability on some causes of action based only on harassment allegations , meaning those counts are conceivably covered. In practice, this invites insurers to take a more surgical approach when evaluating defence obligations rather than issuing blanket denials that courts may later find unreasonable.
What this means for schools, universities and employers
Institutions that face Title IX-era or employment-based complaints often see pleadings that mix harassment, assault and other misconduct. The ruling gives those defendants leverage: they can point to the conceivably covered portions and demand defence, arguing the insurer must provide counsel at least for the parts that might be covered.
Legal analysts suggest quick steps: preserve communications demanding defence, document the parts of the complaint that fit the policy’s affirmative coverage, and seek declaratory relief if the insurer refuses. The decision also shows risk to insurers , bad-faith and statutory claims can follow a wrongful denial, adding substantial exposure beyond defence fees.
Practical advice for policyholders and brokers
If you’re a policyholder, read the complaint carefully and map each theory of liability against the policy language. Highlight causes of action that could be proven without reliance on excluded conduct and push the insurer to accept defence for those parts. Keep demand letters crisp and contemporaneous, and don’t accept vague, form-denial responses.
Brokers should flag these risks to clients and consider endorsements or clearer definitions where possible. And if an insurer resists, consider early motion practice or a declaratory-judgment suit , courts often resolve these disputes before the underlying case concludes.
What to watch next
The panel’s decision is unpublished but fits a broader trend: courts in many jurisdictions apply the potentiality or conceivably-covered standard to force insurers to defend where at least part of a claim may fall within coverage. That said, other circuits have reached different outcomes in close cases, so this isn’t the final word nationwide.
Expect insurers to refine denial letters and for policyholders to press on, especially in Title IX and employment contexts. In short, watch for more coverage fights and for insurers to be careful before issuing a blanket denial.
It's a small change in reading a policy, but it can make a big difference to who pays for defence.
Source Reference Map
Story idea inspired by: [1]
Sources by paragraph: - Paragraph 1: [2], [4] - Paragraph 2: [3], [5] - Paragraph 3: [2], [7] - Paragraph 4: [6], [4] - Paragraph 5: [3], [5] - Paragraph 6: [7], [2]
This analysis was produced by the NOAH PREDICT desk from signals detected across our monitored source network. Every claim traces to a timestamped source item inside the Noah Predict evidence bundle. For the full provenance trail, sign in to the workspace.