United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Jim Maloof Realty, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that underlying complaint “essentially states one cause of action, that of intentional fraud”
• holding that there was no duty to defend where “the factual allegations of the complaint are premised upon only one theory of recovery, that of intentional fraud,” and the policy excluded coverage for “dishonesty, intentional fraud, criminal or malicious act, libel or slander”
• denying coverage for intentional misrepresentation where policy covered “negligent act or omission” of the insured but did not apply to “dishonesty, intentional fraud, criminal or malicious act”
• “[SJince the factual allegations of the complaint are premised upon only one theory of recovery, that of intentional fraud, and do not fall within the potential coverage of the insurance policy, United has no duty to defend its insureds.”
• “The inclusion of [a few isolated] words ... does not transform what is in essence a specific intent to deceive into an aggravated form of negligence. The complaint must be read as a whole in order to assess its true nature”
• “The inclusion of [a few isolated] words ... does not transform what is in essence a specific intent to deceive into an aggravated form of negligence. The complaint must be read as a whole in order to assess its true nature.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).