Kratzer and Barrett were both attendees at a sexual harassment seminar hosted by their union and employer. Both Kratzer and Barrett had, through separate travel arrangements, arrived the day before the seminar was to begin and both were staying at the same hotel. Kratzer, after a session of steady drinking at a local restaurant, went to Barrett's hotel room and made several offensive advances to Barrett. Kratzer's evening long attempt to secure intimate relations included touching Barrett without permission, refusing to let Barrett out of her room and lewd solicitations.

Barrett was unable to attend the seminar sessions the next morning and she reported Kratzer's actions to a company supervisor. Both employers attended the rest of the seminar without further incident. The employer began investigating Kratzer's actions and, because of the investigation, Kratzer resigned.

Barrett claimed that the incident caused her serious emotional distress. She began seeing a psychologist and she also resigned from her job. Barrett was later diagnosed as suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. She also claimed to have experienced thoughts of suicide. Barrett filed a claim for damages against Kratzer and State Farm, Kratzer's homeowner insurer.

State Farm began investigating the claim under a reservation of rights. After discovering the details of the incident, State Farm denied the claim and filed for a declaratory judgment. It requested this judgment, asserting that no bodily injury or accident occurred. Further, their policy excluded intentional acts, therefore they owed neither a defense nor coverage. The lower court agreed and granted their motion. Kratzer and Barrett appealed arguing that, while Kratzer's actions were intended, the injuries were not, so the claim for damages should be eligible for coverage.

The higher court reviewed the arguments along with the homeowner policy definitions for bodily injury and occurrence. In its opinion, no occurrence took place which would trigger coverage. It also held the position that intentional harm is implicit in the act of sexual harassment. Finally the court also believed that the claim involved "business pursuits" which would have also barred recovery. The lower court's decision in favor of State Farm was affirmed.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Respondent v. Tuamafa Barrett et al., Appellants. SCCt. No. 3151 Filed April 10, 2000. Affirmed. CCH 2000 Fire and Casualty Cases, Paragraph 6689.