A Closer Look

Now that I have had a little more time to thoroughly look at the civil complaint filed by Stonington Insurance company I can provide more details.

My initial reaction to reading that the insurance company of Robert Adams was suing him in a civil court case was "huh?"  I couldn't figure out why an insurance company would sue someone they insured.  It didn't make sense to me.  Even more confusing was the plaintiff in another civil case against Mr. Adams also being named as a defendant.  The complaint sheds some light on this:

JANE DOE 45 and her guardian ad litem STEPHANIE DOE are named as necessary
parties against whom a declaration is sought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1060.

For those of you, like me, who have no idea what the Code of Civil Procedure §1060 is, I've found it for you:

Any person interested under a written instrument, excluding a will or a trust, or under a 

contract, or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another,

or in respect to, in, over or upon property, or with respect to the location of the natural 

channel of a watercourse, may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights 

and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the 

superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including 

a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument 

or contract. He or she may ask for a declaration of rights or duties, either alone or with 

other relief; and the court may make a binding declaration of these rights or duties, 

whether or not further relief is or could be claimed at the time. The declaration may be 

either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and the declaration shall have the force 

of a final judgment. The declaration may be had before there has been any breach of the 

obligation in respect to which said declaration is sought.

Confused?  Yeah, me too.  I really haven't a clue what all that means.  Maybe someone can shed some light.

They also have names DOES 1-30 in their complaint as defendants.  The complaint clears that up as well:

Plaintiff is unaware at this stage of the proceedings of DOES 1 through 30, inclusive. At such time as their true names and capacities are ascertained, Plaintiff will seek the Court's permission to amend this Complaint accordingly.

This basically means that the girls listed in the criminal investigation and any unnamed alleged victims could possibly file their own civil lawsuits as well.  Stonington is asking that should this arise, they would not be held responsible for covering Mr. Adams.

Stonington's main issue is that Mr. Adams was supposed to disclose ANY previous allegations of abuse:

As part and parcel of the issuance of these policies, STONINGTON required insurance applications. Inter alia, the applications directed the insured to disclose any prior allegations of abuse or molestation occurring at CREATIVE FRONTIERS or involving ROBERT or SAUNDRA ADAMS. These inquiries were answered by the insureds uniformly in the negative. STONINGTON relied on these representations in issuing the insurance policies.

According to the above, on his application (Stonington has insured Mr. Adams since 2004) he was required to answer, as are ALL applicants, if he had ever been accused of abuse.  They claim he answered "no" which clearly is not the truth.  In the arrest warrant issued for Mr. Adams, it clearly states he was being investigated in 2000 and again in 2006.  Now you might say, "did Mr. Adams know he was being investigated?"  Now I cannot answer this with 100% certainty, but my guess is, yes, he would have at least been notified.  Even though there were never any criminal charges, allegations were made.  This is where the insurance company has a very good point.  If they are correct, and he did not tell the truth on his application, then why should they have to cover him?

Now many might look and say 'well this is just typical insurance company stuff...trying to deny a claim at first.'  However, this is not what is happening.  They are not denying the claim.  They are asking the courts to rescind the policy making it null and void.  They claim that:

The failure to disclose prior allegations of sexual abuse against Mr. ADAMS were material misrepresentations under the California Insurance Code entitling Plaintiff to rescind the contracts ab initio.

This is quite different.  It is NOT a normal thing for insurance companies to file civil suits asking to have a judicial decision to rescind the policy against one of their insured.  Does it happen?  Sure.  But is isn't common practice.  Part of their complaint is that the claim would not be eligible under the terms of the policy, but the main thing they appear to be asking for is the policy to be rescinded completely, leaving them not liable for the current or any future lawsuits. 

Sadly, it appears to be yet another instance where Mr. Adams should have done one thing, and yet chose to do the complete opposite.  While none of this means he is guilty or not guilty of the crimes he is charged with, it certainly puts forth another example where it appears that Mr. Adams did not tell the truth.