State Auto Property & Casualty Co. v. Distinctive Foods, LLC

In an insurance coverage case, the trial court found that the insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify in an underlying case involving claims of detinue, conversion, replevin, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with business. The insured appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it refused to consider facts outside of the complaint in determining whether there was a duty to defend and when the trial court found that an exclusion contained in the policy barred coverage. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the policy’s exclusion for “knowing violation of rights of another” barred coverage where the allegations of the complaint in the underlying matter alleged malicious acts. (MITCHELL and NAVARRO, concurring)