HomeWell Franchising Inc v. Evanston Insurance Company, 7:24-cv-00101

HomeWell Franchising, Inc. ("HomeWell") purchased a professional liability insurance policy from Evanston Insurance Company ("Evanston").
Ms. Egeland, an 82-year-old in the care of a HomeWell franchisee, allegedly suffered serious injuries and death due to alleged negligence and misrepresentations by HomeWell and others.
Her estate sued, asserting claims including misrepresentation, fiduciary fraud, and consumer law violations in California state court (the "Underlying Lawsuit").
HomeWell sought defense from Evanston under its policy, but Evanston denied coverage based on "Bodily Injury" and "Vulnerable Adult Abuse" exclusions.
HomeWell filed this federal action seeking a declaration that Evanston must defend it; Evanston sought summary judgment, arguing all claims are excluded by the policy.
The court found no material fact disputes and ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Underlying Lawsuit alleges claims potentially within coverage	Misrepresentation and personal injury claims are covered	Claims arise from bodily injury/personal injury to a vulnerable adult	Yes; allegations trigger policy coverage
Whether exclusions (Bodily Injury/Vulnerable Adult Abuse) apply	Misrepresentation/fraud/CLRA claims are independent, not caused by bodily injury	All claims bear at least incidental relationship to bodily or personal injury	Exclusions apply, precluding coverage
Whether Evanston has a duty to defend HomeWell in the Underlying Lawsuit	Yes, given the factual allegations and claim definitions	No duty, as all liability falls within an exclusion	No duty to defend; judgment for Evanston
Whether HomeWell’s claims should be dismissed	Should proceed due to improper denial of defense	Should be dismissed with prejudice, as coverage is excluded	Dismissed with prejudice

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (application of state law in diversity)
GuideOne Elite Ins. v. Fielder Rd. Baptist Church, 197 S.W.3d 305 (eight-corners rule for duty to defend)
Nat’l Union Fire Ins. v. Hudson Energy, 811 S.W.2d 552 (policy ambiguities construed in favor of insured)
Gulf States Ins. v. Alamo Carriage Serv., 22 F.3d 88 (exclusion applies, no duty to defend)
Utica Nat. Ins. of Tex. v. Am. Indem. Co., 141 S.W.3d 198 (causation required but-for for exclusions)
Sport Supply Grp., Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 335 F.3d 453 ("arising out of" interpreted broadly in exclusions)