The state Supreme Court says a dentist who stuck boar tusks into the mouth of an anesthetized employee/patient, pried her eyes open, and took photographs, was conducting a "business practice" and his insurance company must pay his attorney fees and court costs. That means dentist Robert Woo will get more money from his insurance company than his employee did when she sued him for "outrage, battery, invasion of privacy, false light, public disclosure of private acts, nonpayment of overtime wages, retaliation for requesting payment of overtime wages, medical negligence, lack of informed consent, and negligent infliction of emotional distress."

The majority opinion in Woo v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., was written by Justice Mary Fairhurst and signed by Tom Chambers, Susan Owens, Richard Sanders and Bobbe Bridge. Fireman's had refused to defend Woo in the suit brought by Tina Alberts, the employee he was performing a dental procedure on.

Fireman's refused to defend under the professional liability provision on the grounds that the acts alleged in Alberts' complaint did not arise out of the provision of dental services. It refused to defend under the employment practices liability provision on the grounds that the complaint did not allege sexual harassment, discrimination, or wrongful discharge as those terms were defined by the policy. It refused to defend under the general liability provision on the grounds that the alleged practical joke was intentional and was not considered a "business activity."

The Supreme Court ruled that Fireman's "had a duty to defend under the professional liability and general liability provisions but not under the employment practices liability provision."

That brought a sharply worded dissent from Justice James Johnson; also signed by Chief Justice Gerry Alexander.

Today's majority decision rewards Dr. Woo's obnoxious behavior and allows him to profit handsomely, receiving a total of $750,000, triple the damages paid to the real victim of his intentional offensive and likely tortious conduct. I would hold that Fireman's Fund Insurance, as his professional practices insurer, does not have a duty to defend Dr. Woo for this intentional tortious behavior. Any reasonable person would not define his actions as a dental procedure or an employment practice covered under Woo's insurance policy and our dental practices statute.

There is also a separate dissent from Justices Charles Johnson and Barbara Madsen:

In her complaint, Tina Alberts alleged that Robert Woo devised a scheme to humiliate her, ordered the boar tusks, placed them in her mouth when she was unconscious, took pictures, had them developed, and told Alberts that she had a trophy to take home.

By these facts, Alberts unambiguously alleges that her injuries were the consequence solely of Woo's intentional conduct, none of which involves providing dental services. Even under the most liberal construction, the complaint's allegations are not conceivably covered.