BOSTON (Legal Newsline) – A ballet instructor can’t rely on insurance to cover his legal costs as he fights allegations he raped a dancer on a trip to Romania.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that way on Oct. 2, finding Safety Insurance Company and National Casualty Company don’t owe anything to Cosmin Marculetiu.
Marculetiu’s company operated a studio in Burlington at which ballerina L.C. danced. In 2014, she accused him of rape on a trip to an international ballet competition, then sued him the next year.
She recounted the alleged incident in 2015 to WMUR. Marculetiu has defended himself by claiming the dancer acted as if she welcomed his advances, while she says she did out of fear of reprisal.
https://www.wmur.com/article/woman-says-she-was-assaulted-during-ballet-competition-trip-1/5206157
But the Appeals Court ruling does not address whether Marculetiu will be found liable, only whether insurance companies must cover his costs. National Casualty was the general liability carrier for Marculetiu’s company. Safety Insurance was his homeowner insurance provider.
“It is uncontested that any injuries suffered by L.C. from Marculetiu's alleged acts occurred out of the country on a work-related trip,” Justice James Milkey wrote.
“Under these circumstances, we agree with Safety that regardless of whether Marculetiu's alleged actions were motivated by personal or business reasons, any resulting injuries arose out of or in connection with Marculetiu's business pursuits, and thus are excluded.”
Though the sexual abuse exception in National’s business policy included a headline that specified “Illinois,” the company argued that was because it was a relic of the policy being purchased through an Illinois organization.
The exception itself does not specify whether it only applies in Illinois.
“Specifically, Marculetiu points to the fact that under the policy here, an IBAN employee can be an insured party not only with respect to actions taken within the scope of his employment, but also for actions taken ‘while performing duties related to the conduct of [IBAN's] business,’” Milkey wrote.
“Even if such language arguably applies to some employee conduct that lies beyond the scope of that employee's employment, we are unpersuaded that it was intended to include the alleged behavior at issue here.”