Insurer had no duty to defend underlying complaint as it did not meet the definition of “personal injury” under the policy

The plaintiffs were named insureds under a commercial general liability policy issued by the defendant. Plaintiff G & K, a franchisor of the Fred Astaire Dance System, was sued for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and various other claims. Upon receipt of the complaint, the plaintiffs notified the defendant, who denied coverage. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action. The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their claim for declaratory judgment on the issue of the duty to defend, and the defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that there was no coverage under the policy for the claims raised in the underlying complaint. The court considered that, while the policy provided coverage for claims based on “personal injury,” the underlying allegation of emotional distress was not contemplated within the definition of “personal injury.” Thus, there was no duty to defend.

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2015}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}