On 1/30/03, andie nachgeborenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I was clerking on the federal district > court in Chicago, there was an insurance > dispute . . . whether the insurer would pay > under a director's and officer's liability > policy for the defense of a firm that had > pleaded guilty to a criminal antitrust > violation and, as part of the settlement of > a interstate transportation of stolen property > (a custimer list) against two officers, paid a > lot of money to the gov't. > > I drafted the opinion, referring to the firm > as a "beehive of criminal activity," talking about > "the general atmosphere of criminal disregard > of the law," and referring often to the criminal > liability and criminal violations.
It may be interesting that you neglect to report how/why this characterization was important (or, indeed, even relevant) to the decision at hand compared with whether the wrong at issue (even if: a crime) was/wasn't a covered occurrence as the policy defined that (or whatever was its like) term. > It was a summary judgment motion, granted in > part, denied in part, they settled, and then the > firm asked the judge to _withdraw her published > opinion_ (with this language). She said, "I don't > issue advisory opinions."
