Harvey Weinstein’s insurers are refusing to pay a cent towards his defence of 11 lawsuits alleging sexual assault and harassment.
Five insurance companies on Wednesday asked a New York Supreme Court judge to absolve them of any obligation to assist the disgraced Hollywood producer.
The companies said in their motion that the fallen mogul had repeatedly ‘requested that [they] provide a defense and indemnity under its policies’.
Harvey Weinstein’s insurers are refusing to pay a cent towards his defence of 11 lawsuits alleging sexual assault and harassment
Rose McGowan (pictured with Weinstein during the Grindhouse premiere) has been one of the producer’s most vocal accusers
But they argued his more than 80 policies did not cover his alleged misconduct because they were intentional acts.
‘The underlying lawsuits arise out of a pattern of intentional, egregious sexual predatory behavior by Harvey Weinstein,’ they wrote.
‘[They] included rape, flashing, groping, fondling, harassing, battering and other sexual assault, all for his own personal sexual gratification, which spanned at least the past 30 years.’
The five companies were Federal Insurance, Chubb Indemnity Insurance, Vigilant Insurance, Pacific Indemnity Company, and Great Northern Insurance.
Chubb went on to explain that the personal liability policies were not triggered because they only covered ‘accident or offence’.
‘[His actions were] ongoing and pervasive, and allegedly criminal, acts of premeditated, forcible, nonconsensual sexual and physical assault, physical threats and abuse in the context of Weinstein’s invitation to his victims to discuss potential acting or producing roles in the film industry,’ it said.
Gwyneth Paltrow is one of the many women who have come forward to make allegations about Weinstein
Chubb Indemnity Insurance, one of Weinstein’s five insurers, explained that the personal liability policies were not triggered because they only covered ‘accident or offence’
‘Chubb advised that such egregious, intentional acts by Mr Weinstein do not constitute an ‘accident’ or an ‘offense’.’
The company also argued Weinstein’s alleged actions were ‘pre-meditated, forcible sexual assault, pervasive and egregious sexual harassment, physical assault and battery and other intentional and deliberate conduct’.
‘Mr Weinstein’s acts were such that the consequences could and should have been foreseen by a reasonable person.’
Chubb also claimed their policies included provisions against ‘molestation, misconduct or abuse’.