Welcome to the National Center for Victims of Crime

We are the nation's leading resource and advocacy organization for crime victims and those who serve them. Please join us as we forge a national commitment to help victims of crime rebuild their lives.

Return to the Case Law Sample List

THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIM BAR ASSOCIATION CIVIL JUSTICE DATABASE

Prudential Property Ins. v. Boylan
704 A.2d 597, N.J.Super.A.D., NJ, 01/22/1998
Category Victim v. Perpetrator; Victim v. Third Party 
Topic Special Victims; Insurers, Homeowners 
Filename Child Victims; Intended Act/Expected Results 
Crime Child Sexual Assault 
Location Child Care Facility 
Prevailing Party Plaintiff 
Other Parties N/A 
HoldingStatement of Facts: The plaintiffs, parents of a five-year-old girl named Minnie, had arranged for the defendant, Linda Boylan, to babysit Minnie one evening because of an emergency. Linda Boylan had provided day care for Minnie since she was six or seven months old. However, on this particular occasion, Linda Boylan was watching Minnie as a favor. Ryan Boylan, Linda's fifteen-year-old son, sexually molested Minnie that night. The plaintiffs filed suit against Ryan and his parents for negligent supervision. The defendants had a homeowners' insurance policy with Prudential. Prudential filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that the policy provided no coverage to the defendants. The trial court denied Prudential's motion for summary judgment and Prudential appealed. Holding: The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey reversed the trial court's order denying summary judgment to Prudential concerning coverage of Ryan Boylan, and affirmed the trial court's order denying summary judgment to Prudential concerning coverage of Ryan's parents. The Court held that Ryan Boylan clearly intended to injure Minnie; therefore, the policy's exclusion for expected or intended injury barred coverage for Ryan. However, even though Linda Boylan operated a day care business in the home, the Court concluded that the "business pursuits" exclusion did not apply to the night in question because that was merely a temporary arrangement for the convenience of the plaintiffs, and thus, outside the normal business hours for day care. 

Damage Award Not tried 
Victim's Counsel     
Plaintiff's Counsel Andrew Gioia, Lake Hopatcong 
Plaintiff's Expert      
Defense Counsel David Marx, Jr., Denville 
Defense Expert

The National Center for Victims of Crime, All rights reserved