person or organization who qualifies as an insured in all the underlying policies listed in Item 5 of the Declarations," and because Item 5 lists only the Auto Policy, the determination of who is insured under both insurance policies is the same. 7 . While the complaint in the Underlying Lawsuit does not specifically state that the Earth Tech employee was acting as a flagman for the tractor-trailer just prior to the accident, a broad reading of the complaint, counseled by the Rule of Potentiality, coupled with the fact that the parties stipulated that the Earth Tech employee was acting as a flagman, compels this interpretation of the complaint. 8 . Compare Belser v. Rockwood Casualty Ins. Co., 791 A.2d 1216, 1221 (Pa.Super.2002); Colfax v. Johnson, 270 Kan. 7, 11 P.3d 1171, 1177 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Apcon Corp. v. Dana Trucking, 251 Ill.App.3d
holding that liability insurance policy that expressly excluded coverage for the insureds intentional acts did not cover punitive damages award assessed against the insured and stating in dictum that public policy forbids insurance coverage for punitive damages holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed holding that new yorks public policy does not bar insurance coverage for disparate impact employment discrimination but noting that the state of new york insurance department has stated that it is against public policy to provide insurance coverage for intentional acts of discrimination holding that a lookout is not using a vehicle entitled to liability coverage under an insurance policy