without any tangible property damage,.-..” Dkt. 22 at 16. On the other hand, Federal argues that the “based upon, arising from, or in .consequence..of’ language in the property damage exclusion should be interpreted broadly. Dkt-. 23 at 13. Federal argues that the court need only find a minimal causal connection to property damage for the exclusion to apply. Id. The court has previously applied the Council’s interpretation of the policy when it analyzed whether Federal had a duty to defend the First Coverage Lawsuit. See Landing Council, 2013 WL 4787954, at *7. There, the court evaluated whether “there was an independent cause giving rise to and thus a duty to defend” each cause of action and whether the property damage exclusion applied to any claims in the Underlying Lawsuits. Id. (<HOLDING>). Applying the same interpretation of the
holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty holding there was a duty to defend the bull capital underlying suit with regard to the fiduciary duty issue because the councils failure to collect assessments after the hurricane due to an undisclosed interest in selling the landing  could have arisen independent of the hurricane holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend holding despite authority for the general proposition that the duty to defend is determined based on the allegations of the complaint that an insurer had no duty to defend where the underlying claim was covered by the policy based on the facts pleaded in complaint but other facts not appearing in the complaint excluded coverage holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify