different from the policy in this case. The cases cited by Appellants primarily contain language defining “occurrences” or “sexual abuse occurrences” and find sexual molestations of multiple victims by one perpetrator constitute one occurrence. See Merryland Childcare, 2007 WL 316571, at *2, *6 (finding abuse of multiple children constituted one “sexual abuse occurrence,” defined as “[a] single act, or multiple, continuous, sporadic, or related acts of sexual abuse.... A ‘sexual abuse occurrence’ must occur while the claimant is in the care, custody or control of an insured----”); Smart School, 401 F.Supp.2d at 1342-44 (interpreting language identical to that in Merryland Childcare to reach the same conclusion); TIG Ins. Co. v. San Antonio YMCA, 172 S.W.3d 652, 661 (Tex.App.2005) (<HOLDING>); Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Watson, 937
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 trial court was proper in admitting a doctors testimony that a delay between the occurrence of an incident of child sexual abuse and the childs revelation of the incident was the usual pattern of conduct for victims of child sexual abuse holding that attempted sexual abuse is a specific intent crime holding that an abuse or molestation exclusion unambiguously covered claim of sexual touching even though terms abuse and molestation were not defined 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