ILL. FARMERS INSURANCE CO. v. Preston

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the insurer had duty to defend where the policy excluded “coverage for bodily injury ‘[a]rising as a result of intentional acts of an insured,’ ” and where the underlying complaint alleged only intentional misconduct
• noting that the claim assertedly within the policy’s coverage was based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which offers “no remedy ... based upon the mere negligence of the defendant”
• finding no duty to defend because complaint expressly indicated plaintiffs reliance upon a conspiracy theory, not negligence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).