The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that an insurance carrier that provided an insurance professionals' errors and omissions liability insurance policy to an agency was not obligated to defend the agency in a suit brought by a competitor agency, where the suit only asserted claims for intentional wrongdoing.

The Case

In a Michigan state court, Mayfair Insurance Agency sued Matthew T. Szura & Co., operating under the name Szura Insurance Services, and Doug Charon, an insurance agent who previously had been affiliated with Mayfair, alleging that Mr. Charon had breached his confidentiality agreement and fiduciary duties when he left Mayfair, joined Szura, and sold Szura's insurance products to Mayfair's customers. Mayfair alleged that Szura had tortiously interfered with the confidentiality agreement in the Charon-Mayfair employment contract, as well as with Mayfair's business relationships and expectancies, when Szura engaged Mr. Charon to sell its insurance products to certain Mayfair customers with whom Charon had developed a relationship while working at Mayfair.

Szura asked General Insurance Company of America for a defense pursuant to an insurance professionals errors and omissions liability insurance policy that General Insurance had issued to Szura. After General Insurance refused to defend Szura, Szura sought a declaration that the policy required General Insurance to defend Szura.

The district court entered judgment in favor of General Insurance, and Szura appealed.

The Policy

Section one of the policy, captioned “Insuring Agreements,” provided:

A. COVERAGE PROVISION:

We will pay on behalf of the insured damages that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay because of claims made against the insured for wrongful acts arising out of the performance of professional services for others.

C. DEFENSE PROVISION