Massage Therapist Not Entitled To A Defense For Sexual Assault.

A massage therapist was sued by a client who contended he committed a sexual assault against her during a massage. The therapist contended an insurance company owed him a duty to defend the action because he was either a partner or an employee of the insured and the alleged assault occurred in the scope of employment. The insurer said that the therapist, even were he a partner or an employee, would be an additional insured only with respect to the [insured’s] business for acts within the scope of employment. The trial court sustained the insurer’s demurrer, and concluded the therapist was not entitled to a defense as a matter of law. In affirming, the appellate court stated: “Because the intentional sexual assault alleged in the underlying case cannot properly be characterized as within the scope of [the therapist’s] employment or having occurred while performing duties related to the conduct of [the insured’s] business, [the therapist] was not insured under the policy, and [the insurer] had no duty of defense or indemnity.” (Baek v. Continental Casualty Company (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4; October 6, 2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 356, [178 Cal.Rptr.3d 622].)