An insurance policy that excludes coverage for sexual relationships/misconduct between a psychologist and his patient does not violate public policy. Furthermore, the wife of the adulterous psychologist cannot be held liable for the same acts under a marital property theory.
Annette Manterola and her psychologist had a sexual affair. Manterola later sued Dr. Elias for professional negligence, several intentional torts and statutory claims. She also sued Mrs. Elias for negligence. The parties entered into stipulation whereby
Manterola won a $2 million judgment. In the stipulation, Manterola agreed not to execute the judgment and the Eliases assigned to her their rights against their insurance company. The agreement stated that Dr. Elias had engaged in a sexual relationship with Manterola after termination of formal professional service.
When Manterola turned to the insurance company for money, they claimed lack of coverage. A trial court agreed via summary judgment and Manterola appealed, claiming that exclusion of sexual misconduct from coverage was against public policy.
WHAT MANTEROLA MEANS
An insurance policy excluding coverage for sexual relationship/misconduct between a married psychologist an his patient does not violate public policy. The same patient will not recover against the psychologist's wife under a marital property theory.
The court affirmed, holding that Arizona has laws that proscribe sexual misconduct between psychologist and patient and that many courts have noted the risk insurance companies would have to take in order to provide such coverage. The court also held that Mrs. Elias, despite any community property laws in effect, did not have a reasonable expectation of coverage under the policy and that she could not be held liable thereunder.
