SHANAHAN v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY










Filed 3/8/11; pub. order 3/17/11 (see end of opn.)














IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JOHN M. SHANAHAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.

G042988 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2008-00106019) O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Franz E. Miller, Judge. Affirmed.
Valera Law Office and Viterbo L. Valera for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Robie & Matthai, James R. Robie, Michael J. O'Neill and Ronald P. Funnell for Defendant and Respondent.


Cheryl Skigin sued her employer John M. Shanahan and companies owned by him for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, marital status discrimination, religious discrimination, retaliation, sexual battery, breach of oral contract, fraud and deceit, breach of written contract, and wrongful termination. Shanahan settled the lawsuit for $700,000.
Shanahan had a renter's insurance policy and a separate personal liability policy (umbrella policy) with State Farm General Insurance Company (State Farm). He sued State Farm for breach of contract and breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing based upon State Farm's refusal to defend the Skigin lawsuit. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, contending it had no duty to defend Shanahan. Pertinent to this appeal, State Farm asserted it had no duty to defend a charge of sexual battery because intentional acts are not covered by Shanahan's policies. The trial court granted State Farm's motion.
Shanahan argued that although sexual battery is an intentional act not covered by his policies, Skigin could have amended the complaint or a jury could have found he negligently touched her. Skigin, however, testified in her deposition that she was not offended by his negligent touchings. We conclude there was no potential for liability on a negligence theory.
Shanahan further argues that facts alleged in the complaint may have constituted defamation, an offense covered by his umbrella policy. However, there was no evidence suggesting any publication of the alleged statements to any third person. He denied ever making the statements and according to Skigin's deposition testimony, no one was present when he made the first statement, and the person sitting next to her did not hear Shanahan's second statement.
We also reject Shanahan's contention that his alleged repeated attempts at convincing Skigin to leave her husband and his act of sending her flowers to her residence with a card suggesting their relationship was more personal than professional amounted to an invasion of privacy, a cause of action covered by his umbrella policy. Accordingly, we affirm.
I
FACTS
Skigin, an attorney, sued Shanahan and Shanahan's companies alleging a number of improprieties by Shanahan, her employer, in connection with her employment.[1] Included in the complaint was a cause of action against Shanahan, alone, for sexual battery. The complaint alleged in an introductory paragraph that in December 2003, while Skigin was at a Christmas party at Shanahan's house, he â€