Continental Casualty Co. v. HSI Financial Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the claims of failure to supervise that arose from employee’s criminal conduct were within the scope of the policy exclusion
• concluding plaintiff could not bring suit for negligent hiring to avoid policy exclusions for employee’s fraud
• finding that claims for negligence and malpractice against law partners “arose out of” conduct in exclusionary clause where “but for” the tortfeasor’s conduct, there could be no claim against his partners
• finding that claims for negligence and malpractice against law partners “arose out of” conduct in exclusionary clause where “but for” the tortfeasor’s conduct, there could be no claim against his partners
• “The test to determine whether a claim arose out of excluded conduct is essentially a ‘but for’ analysis.”
• claims for law partner's negligence with respect to supervising and mitigating fellow partner's embezzlement \arose out\ of a dishonest, criminal act within meaning of insurance policy exclusion where adequate supervision would have ensured the proper accounting of escrowed funds

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).