First Defiance Financial v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

8 Citing cases

  1. Cumberland & Erly, LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

    128 F. Supp. 3d 888 (D. Md. 2015)

    A β€œdirect loss” is one proximately caused by an employee's dishonest act.There is abundant authority supporting this Court's interpretation. See, e.g., First Defiance Fin. Corp. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 688 F.Supp.2d 703, 707 (N.D.Ohio 2010); Phillip R. Seaver Title Co., Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., No. 08–cv–11004, 2008 WL 4427582, at *3–4 (E.D.Mich. Sept. 30, 2008).

  2. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Cumis Ins. Soc'y, Inc.

    CASE NO. 1:11 CV 1739 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 7, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    To the contrary, this Court has found several cases in which this principle has been cited in the interpretation of fidelity bonds under Ohio law. See e.g., First Defiance Financial Corp.v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 688 F.Supp.2d 703, 706 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (Zouhary, J.) (in context of construing fidelity bond under Ohio law, stating that "[i]f contract provisions allow for more than one reasonable interpretation, the provisions must be strictly construed against the insurer"); First National Bank of Dillonvale v. Progressive Casualty Ins, 94 Ohio App.3d 368, 373 (Ohio App. 7th Dist. 1993)("Since the [financial institution] bond [covering employee dishonesty] . . . was an insurance policy, Ohio law requires that ambiguous terms are to be construed liberally in favor of the insured") abrogated on other grounds by Bush v. W.C. Cardinal Co., 2003 WL 22332938 (Ohio App. 7th Dist. 2003)). See also Zeller v. Auto Owners Insurance Co., 2014 WL 5803028 at * 4 (Ohio App. 3rd Dist. Nov. 10, 2014) (in the context of Tailored Protection Policy that covered employee dishonesty, finding that "any ambiguity is construed against the insurer"); Guyan, 2013 WL 1338194 at * 18 (applying this principle in context of policy issued to employee benefits plan a

  3. Guyan Int'l, Inc. v. Prof'l Benefits Adm'rs, Inc.

    CASE NO. 5:10 CV 823 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    Further, the Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a district court's determination that the Ohio Supreme Court would apply a proximate cause standard in construing an insurance policy to determine if plaintiffs sustained a loss "resulting directly from" the "theft of Insured property by Computer Fraud." Retail Ventures, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA., 691 F.3d 821, 830-33 (6th Cir. 2012); see also First Defiance Financial Corporation v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 688 F.Supp.2d 703, 708 (N.D. Ohio 2010). In this case, Plaintiffs' loss of plan funds to pay Plaintiffs' employees' healthcare claims was both literally and proximately caused by PBA's use of Plaintiffs' plan funds for operational expenses rather than for claim payment.

  4. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Axos Clearing LLC

    982 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    In most jurisdictions, this type of employee dishonesty provision covers the insured's loss if its employee embezzled customer funds in the insured's possession or control. See Vons, 212 F.3d at 491 ; First Defiance Fin. Corp. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 688 F. Supp. 2d 703, 708 (N.D. Ohio 2010). But if the employee embezzled a customer's personal funds not in the employer's possession or control, that is not a covered direct loss even if the employer later reimbursed the customer in a legal judgment or settlement.

  5. Retail Ventures, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh

    691 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2012)   Cited 39 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under Ohio law, a "proximate cause" standard should be used "to determine whether plaintiffs sustained loss 'resulting directly from' the 'theft of Insured property by Computer Fraud'"

    ” Tri City, 674 N.W.2d at 626, n. 9. A direct loss may be caused by an β€œemployee's theft of property for which it is legally liable, the typical case being where the insured is a bailee or trustee of property.” Vons, 212 F.3d at 491;see also First Defiance Fin. Corp. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 688 F.Supp.2d 703, 707 (N.D.Ohio 2010) (holding that employer incurred direct loss resulting from the theft of customer funds held in trust by the employer under fidelity bond), aff'd in part,688 F.3d 265 (6th Cir.2012). We do not reach plaintiffs' alternative argument that even under a direct-means-direct approach the losses would not be excluded because this case involves β€œtheft” of insured property from plaintiffs' computer system.

  6. Sperling & Slater, P.C. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co.

    12 C 761 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 5, 2012)

    The Firm argues that Sangiacomo's "manifest intent" to cause the Firm to suffer a loss from her dishonest acts is established because it was "substantially certain" that the Firm would reimburse Sperling. The Firm cites First Defiance Fin. Corp. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 688 F. Supp. 2d 703 (N.D. Ohio 2010) aff'd, 10-3943, 2012 WL 3104517 (6th Cir. Aug. 1, 2012), in which the issue was whether a fidelity bond covered a bank employee's theft from customer brokerage accounts. Like Hartford, the insurance company argued that the bond would only cover a theft from the bank's own accounts, even though the bank had reimbursed its customers for the stolen funds.

  7. Monroe Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Radwan Brown Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-247-JBC (E.D. Ky. Mar. 23, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Cases cited by Radwan where the insured was found to have suffered a direct loss as a result of an employee's wrongful actions on a third party are instances when the insured held the funds at issue or were deposited into accounts with insured. See First Defiance Finance Corp. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 688 F.Supp.2d 703, 707-08 (N.D.Ohio 2010) (bank found to have suffered a direct loss when employee took funds out of client accounts held at the bank and court concluded that bond language allowed that a theft could create a direct loss); In re Baker Getty Fin. Serv., Inc. 93 B.R. 559 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 1988), disagreed with on other grounds by Peoples Bank Trust Co. of Madison County v. Aetnea Cas. Sur. Co., 113 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 1997) (held that when employee collected funds on behalf of his employer but neglected to remit such funds to the company, it could be considered direct loss because company was vicariously liable); Phillip R. Seaver Title Co., Inc. v. Great American Ins. Co., 08-CV-11004, 2008 WL 4427582, *4 (E.D.Mich. 2008) (unpublished) (case involving "an employee who embezzles funds from her employer, where the funds are held in trust for another."). Further, Radwan cannot recover under the Employee Dishonesty section because the money was not in a location covered under the policy.

  8. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ironics, Inc.

    2022 Ohio 841 (Ohio 2022)   Cited 2 times

    {ΒΆ 20} The exception's distinction between "your product" and "impaired property" provides support for the conclusion that Owens's claims are based on "property damage." Moreover, a contrary conclusion would render the impaired-property exclusion superfluous, and courts avoid interpretations of insurance-coverage provisions that render exclusions superfluous, see, e.g., First Defiance Fin. Corp. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 688 F.Supp.2d 703, 707 (N.D.Ohio 2010) ("A contract is to be read as a whole, and if [the insurer's] position were correct, then the above exception would be surplusage without meaning"); HoneyBaked Foods, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 757 F.Supp.2d 738, 746 (N.D.Ohio 2010) ("It is unreasonable to construe the language as eliminating the seven exclusions directly following it when an alternative, recognized and reasonable interpretation exists"); see also Andersen v. Highland House Co., 93 Ohio St.3d 547, 549, 757 N.E.2d 329 (2001), quoting Home Indemn. Co. of New York v. Plymouth, 146 Ohio St. 96, 64 N.E.2d 248 (1945), paragraph two of the syllabus (" 'where exceptions * * * are introduced into an insurance contract, a general presumption arises to the effect that that which is not clearly excluded from the operation of such contract is included in the operation thereof * * * Thus, * * * if a policy does not plainly exclude a claim from coverage, then an insured may infer that the claim will be