the Westport policy, induced the Diehls to loan him a large amount of money through fraudulent representations and abuse of the attorney-client relationship. (TAC ¶¶ 10-11, 21-25, 39.) The underlying complaint alleges that Hanft used this money to gamble at casinos and satisfy his gambling debts. (TAC ¶ 16.) Finally, the complaint alleges that the Diehls received nothing of value for their loans, “which [Hanft] never intended to repay or, in the alternative, believed he could repay only because of a[sic] unreasonable disregard for the truth that was so reckless as to amount to conscious deception.” (TAC ¶40.) These allegations clearly demonstrate that Hanft gained personal profit to which he was not legally entitled through the wrongful acts from which t .2d 1035, 1045 (C.D.Ill.2003) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the allegations and evidence
holding that the use of the phrase any insured rather than the insured the same language used in the employers liability exclusion here meant that the exclusion was not limited to injuries sustained by the employees or contractors of one insured party holding past profits coupled with other facts and circumstances may establish lost profits recognizing that we are obligated to reverse where the improper exclusion of evidence places the underlying fairness of the entire trial in doubt or where the exclusion affects the substantial rights of the defendant holding exclusion inapplicable because under the facts alleged in the underlying suit the insured could receive personal profits and be legally entitled to retain them and distinguishing cases where there was sufficient evidence in the underlying complaint to show the profits received were illegal or undeserved within the meaning of the exclusion holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled