alleged in the state court complaint an “accidental loss” as described in the policy? (3) Does the criminal acts exclusion of the policy apply in the circumstances alleged in the state court complaint? We do not intend the particular phrasing of these questions to limit the Supreme Court of Florida in its consideration of the issues posed by this case. We recognize that answer to one or more of these certified questions may make it unnecessary for the Supreme Court to answer another question^). In order to assist consideration of the case, the entire record, along with the briefs of the parties, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court of Florida. QUESTIONS CERTIFIED. 1 . Jurisdiction is based on diversity. 2 . See, e.g., Landis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 546 So.2d 1051, 1053 (Fla.1989) (<HOLDING>); Shearer v. Central Florida YMCA, 546 So.2d
holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim holding that liability insurer had duty to defend insured against complaint that alleged intentional tort and negligence in the alternative even when policy excluded coverage for intentional torts holding that public policy favors the exclusion of intentional acts as contained in the mjua policy holding that no intentional police misrepresentation occurred holding that intentional acts exclusion applies to intentional act of child molestation