The minor plaintiff was allegedly attacked by the insureds' son on school property.
The plaintiff sued the son for intentional torts and the parents for negligent supervision.
The parents' homeowner's insurer denied coverage and refused to defend the action, relying on an exclusion clause for intentional or criminal acts by 'any person or any named insured'.
The parents successfully brought a motion for summary judgment declaring the insurer had a duty to defend them.
The insurer appealed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the exclusion clause ambiguous as to whether the intentional act of one insured excluded coverage for all insureds, including those sued in negligence.
The ambiguity was resolved in favour of the insureds.
