Posted on July 27, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 5410
In Samsung Fire And Marine Insurance Co., LTD, v. RI Settlement Trust; Ace Property And Casualty Insurance Company; Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company; Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company; Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation, No. 61 EAP 2024, No. J-65-2025, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (July 21, 2026).
The question presented was:
Does Pennsylvania have an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking-as found regarding Schedule I controlled substances in Minnesota Fire & Casualty Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A.2d 854 (Pa. 2004), and as evinced by the state’s anti-trafficking law, 18 Pa.[C.S.] § 3011(a)- such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such trafficking?
This case arises out of four separate civil complaints in which the respective plaintiffs (“Underlying Plaintiffs”) alleged that, as minors, they were victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, including the Roosevelt Inn.
Under Pennsylvania law, the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and is determined by comparing the four corners of the insurance policy with the four corners of the complaint.
The insurers argued that public policy barred coverage for losses arising from an insured’s criminal acts involving Schedule I controlled substances.
The Court stressed that insurers are sophisticated parties capable of drafting exclusions for trafficking-related, criminal-conduct, abuse, or similar risks if they choose to do so.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that neither the duty to defend nor the duty to indemnify is abrogated on public-policy grounds merely because the insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from sex trafficking.
Although it is a crime in Pennsylvania traffic sex it does not bar coverage even if the policy language otherwise triggered those duties. The Supreme Court found that neither the duty to defend nor the duty to indemnify is abrogated on public-policy grounds merely because the insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from sex trafficking. Simply alleging that the insured violated a state law does not establish a public policy that creates an unwritten exclusion.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gNsmiBcd. Go to X Barry Zalma
Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.