of repaying it. The exclusion therefore bars coverage. Next, the Diehls argue that the exclusion does not apply because a jury could conclude that Hanft was legally entitled to the loan money but merely committed legal malpractice by failing to properly secure the loans for his clients. Again, we cannot be blind to what the Diehls content in the underlying complaint: that Hanft procured the loans through “fraudulent representations.” Because the loans were procured by fraud and misrepresentation, Hanft was not legally entitled to the funds ab initio. Finally, the Diehls argue that the words “in fact” in the personal profit exclusion mean that Westport cannot deny coverage on the basis of that exclusion until the factfinder in t 0697, 2006 WL 1476206 at *7 (S.D.Ohio May 25, 2006) (<HOLDING>); Am. Chem. Soc’y v. Leadscope, Inc., No.
holding that where claims are cast wholly within policy exclusion there is no duty to defend holding second sentence of a nearly identical exclusion did not limit the scope of the exclusion holding exclusion did not absolve insurer of duty to defend because no factual or legal basis currently exists for applying the exclusion holding that claims were clearly excluded from coverage under assault and battery exclusion and therefore insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend