makes more sense if costs are covered, the Seventh Circuit nevertheless held that the parenthetical was an exclusion within an exclusion, and thus a nullity under Illinois law. Id. at 300. Accord Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 85-3163 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 1991) (construing similar policy and finding no obligation to pay for defense costs). The Second Circuit, in declaring that a policy similar to the one at issue here did not provide for payment of defense costs, found the parenthetical ambiguous but immaterial because the parties did not dispute that in-house expenses were not covered under the policy. Home Ins. Co. v. American Home Prods. Corp., 665 F.Supp. 193 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 902 F.2d 1111, 1114 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). The application of Ohio law leads to a result
holding that punitive damages may be imposed against employer for tortious conduct of employee holding that a further finding that the insured intended to injure the defendant would preclude any liability for the insurer for indemnification of compensatory or punitive damages holding that indemnification by excess liability insurer for punitive damages imposed on drug manufacturer contrary to public policy holding on policy grounds that a strict liability claim should not lie against drug manufacturer 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