Pashkoff v. Zollner

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that despite pleading a cause of action for negligence, the underlying complaint alleged intentional acts
• holding that intentional act was, by necessary implication, not an “occurrence”
• the duty to defend persists “until the claim is confined to a recovery the policy does not cover” (citation omitted)
• “[T]he allegations in the complaint describe the intentional torts of assault and battery and are excluded from coverage.”
• “Regardless of whether appellants chose to plead a negligence cause of action, it is clear from the undisputed facts that Hearn’s assault on Clayton was intentional.”
• although the complaint included counts sounding in negligence, the question of coverage is decided by the factual allegations and “it is clear from the undisputed facts that [the] assault . . . was intentional.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).