24-A M.R.S.A. § 2904 (2000). 5 . Our conclusion that the abuse or molestation exclusion unambiguously precludes recovery here comports with the decisions of other jurisdictions construing the same or similar policy exclusions. See, e.g., Am. States Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 133 F.3d 363, 370 (5th Cir.1998) (applying Texas law and holding that minister’s sexual misconduct unambiguously fell within exclusion for "sexual action”); McAuliffe v. N. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 69 F.3d 277, 279-80 (8th Cir.1995) (applying Missouri law and holding that policy exclusion for "actual or threatened abuse or molestation" covered claim against church where a parishioner was "sexually exploited” by priest); Cmty. Action for Greater Middlesex County v. Am. Alliance Ins. Co., 254 Conn. 387, 757 A.2d 1074, 1082 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 6 . The parties also dispute whether Sarah
holding direct touching of victims vagina constituted child molestation under amended statutes holding that sexual molestation of students by teacher is presumed to result in physical injury holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse holding that although there were six occurrences under the general liability policy there was only one sexual abuse occurrence where sexual abuse occurrence was defined as a single act or multiple continuous sporadic or related acts of sexual molestation or abuse caused by one perpetrator holding that an abuse or molestation exclusion unambiguously covered claim of sexual touching even though terms abuse and molestation were not defined