NORTHFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY and CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S OF LONDON v. Kentucky Association of Counties All Lines Fund Trust

*The Honorable Dan Aaron Polster, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by
designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0208n.06
Filed: March 23, 2005
No. 04-5103
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NORTHFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY
and CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT
LLOYD’S OF LONDON,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
KENTUCKY ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES ALL LINES FUND TRUST,
Defendant-Appellee,
and FRANKLIN COUNTY, KENTUCKY,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OPINION
Before: COLE and GILMAN, Circuit Judges; and POLSTER, District Judge.*
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Franklin County, Kentucky incurred liability
in excess of $5 million when its County Jailor, Hunter Hay, sexually harassed and retaliated against
a number of employees at the Franklin County Jail. During the period of this illegal conduct,
Franklin County was insured through the Kentucky Association of Counties All Lines Fund
(KALF), a self-insurance program administered by a nonprofit corporation representing the various
counties in Kentucky. KALF in turn purchased several excess-liability insurance policies from

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-5103
Northfield Ins. Co. v. Franklin County
- 2 -
Northfield Insurance Company and from certain underwriters at Lloyds of London to reinsure the
risks that it underwrote.
Seeking a declaratory judgment that they had no duty to indemnify Franklin County for any
of the claims arising from Hay’s conduct at the jail, the three insurers brought the present action.
The district court granted summary judgment in their favor and dismissed Franklin County’s
counterclaims.
On appeal, Franklin County argues that the district court erred in ruling that (1) the insurers
had no duty to indemnify the County because the illegal conduct was excluded from coverage as an
“intentional tort” that the County knowingly failed to correct upon discovery, (2) the County was
not entitled to reimbursement for the $537,000 in settlements it paid without KALF’s prior written
consent, and (3) KALF had not violated Kentucky insurance laws in the drafting, marketing, and
sale of its insurance policies.
After carefully considering the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable
law, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court did not err in
granting summary judgment to the insurers. Because the reasoning that supports the judgment for
the insurers has been clearly articulated by the district court in a thorough and comprehensive
35-page decision, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by us would be unduly duplicative.
Accordingly, the judgment rendered by the Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Court
Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort, is AFFIRMED on the basis of the reasoning
detailed in his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 29, 2003.

-- 2 of 2 --