The Montana Supreme Court found coverage in a wrongful death case brought against an educational academy and others. Newman v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.,2013 Mont. LEXIS 146 (Mont. May 7, 2013).

   The 16-year old girl was residing at the Spring Creek Lodge Academy in Montana at the time of her death. The girl's mother brought suit against the owner of the school, on-site directors, Teen Help, and other various related entities. Teen Help agreed to settle with the mother by assigning to her its rights to $3 million in insurance coverage. 

   The mother then filed suit for declaratory judgment and breach of contract against Teen Help's insurers, Scottsdale and National Union. The trial court granted summary judgment to the mother. The insurers appealed.

   Scottsdale contended the exclusions in its policy applied and it had no duty to defend. The first exclusion relied upon, the designated professional services exclusion, barred coverage for bodily injury "due to the rendering or failure to render any professional service." Teen Help was described in the underlying complaint as no more than a marketing arm of the other defendants, directing parents of troubled teems to the academy. These allegations did not suggest the exercise of trained judgment or specialized learning unique to professional services. Because non-professional services were alleged, a duty to defend was triggered.

   National Union provided excess coverage for Teen Help. National Union first contended the mother's underlying claim did not constitute an "occurrence." The court disagreed. Teen Help, the insured, did not expert or intend the young girl's suicide. Therefore, the suicide could arguably constitute an "occurrence" as defined in the policy. Interposing the young girl's intent as determinative of the existence of an "occurrence" made no sense because she was not the insured. 

   National Union also argued coverage was excluded under its professional liability exclusion. The same analysis that was applied to Scottsdale's exclusion applied to National Union's. Further, National Union's policy did not define terms used in the exclusion, such as "arising out of," "professional," or "professional nature." Without such definitions, the exclusion failed to alert the insured as to what services were covered and what services were excluded, thereby rendering it confusing and ambiguous. The exclusion was, therefore, construed against National Union. 

   Therefore, the trial court's granting of summary judgment to the mother was upheld.