In Szura & Co. v. General Ins. Co., Case No. 12-2505 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2013) an insurance agent sued for a declaration that its E&O insurer was obligated to defend the agent in an underlying suit for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business relationship, and civil conspiracy. The E&O policy defined “Wrongful Act” as “any actual or alleged negligent act, error or omission.” The E&O insurer successfully argued that there was only coverage for negligent acts and the allegations in the underlying suit against the agent were for intentional conduct. The E&O insurer, thus, had no duty to defend.

For further discussion of this issue in the context of the Szura opinion, here’s an excellent article from Randy Maniloff in “Coverage Opinions”

Tags: E&O, wrongful act, negligent