On September 19, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s holding in Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. created two circuit splits regarding the interpretation of Interstate Fire and Casualty Co.’s insurance policy provisions, particularly in the context of indemnification for sexual abuse settlements. Hartford held that in insurance policy interpretation the presence of an occurrence is determined by a subjective test of expectation from the standpoint of the insured. The Second Circuit also held that the assault and battery exclusion excluded only those insureds that committed the assault and battery, not all insureds on the policy. As a result, the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the Archdiocese and concluded that it was entitled to coverage for its claims. This Comment argues that the Second Circuit’s interpretation accurately applied the rules of insurance policy interpretation, as well as the rules of grammar, to correctly interpret these policy provisions
