Bankr. No.:
97-40030
Adv. No.:
97-4021
Chapter:
13
Date of Decision:
August 29, 1997
Issue:
On proposed findings and conclusions to District Court under 28 U.S.C. sec. 157(c)(1): Whether day care insurance provider or homeowner's insurance provider had a duty to defend the debtor/in-home day care operator where the debtor's son, who was not an employee, is alleged to have sexually abused some day care children while in the day care home or while the son babysat one day care child in the child's home?
Ruling:
The homeowner's insurer did not have a duty to defend the debtor. The day care insurer did have a duty to defend the debtor.
Full Bankruptcy Court Decision:
