Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Oblates of St. Francis De Sales, Inc.

2010 WL 3610451 (2010)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Oblates of St. Francis De Sales, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals
2010 WL 3610451 (2010)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

James Rapp was a priest ordained by the Oblates of St. Francis de Sales, Inc. (Oblates) (defendant) and employed by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City (archdiocese) (defendant). Rapp was assigned to the Assumption Parish (Assumption). At the time Rapp was assigned to Assumption, he had a 20-year-long history of sexually abusing minor boys. Rapp went through several in-patients rounds of treatment for his pedophilia but always reoffended upon release. After Rapp’s most recent round of in-patient treatment, the facility director stated that Rapp would need lifelong therapy to control his pedophilia and that he should not be assigned to work with children. Regardless, in 1990, the Oblates subsequently reassigned Rapp to Assumption without warning either Assumption or the archdiocese about Rapp’s history of sexual misconduct or his pedophilia diagnosis. Rapp was not subject to any counseling requirements, and his work with children was unrestricted until Rapp was ultimately arrested in 1999. Rapp sexually abused a minor child from 1993 to 1997 while assigned to Assumption. The child’s parents sued the Oblates, arguing that the Oblates’ failure to warn Assumption about Rapp’s history of child sexual abuse caused their child’s injuries. Because the Oblates’ insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) (plaintiff), denied liability coverage, the archdiocese lent the Oblates $5 million to settle the lawsuit. The Oblates then assigned their CIC policy to the archdiocese. The archdiocese sued CIC for reimbursement. CIC moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not need to indemnify the archdiocese for its loan to the Oblates because the Oblates’ failure to disclose Rapp’s pedophilia was substantially certain to result in injury. The trial court granted CIC summary judgment. The archdiocese appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Handwork, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 820,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership