In Jane D. v. Ordinary Mutual (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 643, the Third Appellate District considered a case where a plaintiff brought suit against a priest, alleging the priest had induced her into having sexual relations after she sought counseling from him when she was only 15 years old. (Id. at p. 645.) The priest did not oppose the plaintiff's lawsuit and the plaintiff obtained a default judgment against him. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant insurance company, seeking a declaration that the priest was covered by the policy and the company was therefore obligated to pay the full policy limit in satisfaction of the default judgment against the priest. (Id. at p. 646.) The policy at issue provided insurance coverage for bodily injury and property damage, and "'persons insured'" was defined as employees acting within the scope of their employment. (Jane D., supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 646.) The "named insured" was the diocese. The policy provided exclusions for "'licentious, immoral or sexual behavior intended to lead to or culminating in any sexual act.'" (Id. at p. 647.) The policy also provided a sexual misconduct endorsement, which provided the insurance company would pay a maximum of $1 million on behalf of the named insureds for damages due to "'any claim made against such Named Insureds arising out of sexual misconduct, sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual molestation of or by any person,' subject to certain conditions. It also provided: 'No other endorsement to the policy is intended to provide coverage for any claims concerning sexual misconduct, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, or sexual molestation of or by any person.'" (Ibid.) On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court determined the accused priest was not a "named insured" under the policy and entered judgment in favor of the defendant insurance company. (Id. at p. 648.)