Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Fraud Exclusion Bars Coverage for RICO and Fraud Suit

By Executive Summary on October 16, 2014
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

An Illinois federal court has held that a fraud exclusion applied to an underlying complaint alleging counts for violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and for common law fraud.  Gen. Star Nat. Ins. Co. v. Adams Valuation Corp., 2014 WL 4783027 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2014).  Notably, the exclusion did not have an in fact or final adjudication requirement.

An insured appraisal firm and its principal were named as defendants in a lawsuit that alleged that the insureds “engaged in a massive scheme to defraud two banks out of millions of dollars through the making of unsupportable and improper insider loans.”  The insureds sought coverage from their real estate E&O insurer, which denied coverage based on a fraud exclusion that barred coverage in connection with claims arising out of “a dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious act or omission, or intentional misrepresentation . . . committed by, at the direction of, or with the knowledge of any Insured.”

In the ensuing coverage action, the court granted judgment on the pleadings for the insurer, holding that the fraud exclusion relieved the insurer of its duty to defend as a matter of law.  The court held that liability under the RICO Act required a showing that the insureds committed or agreed to engage in “racketeering activity,” which is defined under the RICO Act to include only specified criminal acts.  The court also noted that the common law fraud counts required a showing that the insureds committed or assisted in dishonest or fraudulent acts or omissions or intentional misrepresentations.  Because there was no possible circumstance where the insured could be found liable without triggering the exclusion, the court held that the insurer had no duty to defend.

  • Posted in:
    Insurance
  • Blog:
    Wiley Executive Summary
  • Organization:
    Wiley Rein LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo