allegations against Aon in this case are complicated, Aon’s inconsistent-position argument is straightforward. Aon asserts that, in this case, Horizon seeks to recover against Aon based on allegations that there was no coverage under the Policy and that the Policy was invalid due to the failure to make all required disclosures. Aon asserts that these purpoi’ted factual allegations are inconsistent with Horizon’s allegations in the English suit that there was coverage under the Policy and that the Policy was valid because all required disclosures were made. After scrutinizing the allegations in Horizon’s live petition, we disagree with Aon’s characterization of the factual basis for Horizon’s Claims. Although there are many ancillary and alterna ouston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). We may not extend the election-of-remedies
holding that election of remedies did not apply because legalmalpractice plaintiffs allegations in the underlying partnership dispute were  consistent with his allegations in his malpractice action against his litigation attorney in the underlying case holding that evidence of other allegations of torture was inadmissible in part because it was not similar to the allegations made by defendant holding that because the allegations purportedly suppressed by the government were not material an evidentiary hearing further exploring the  allegations themselves and the governments knowledge of the allegations is unnecessary holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal holding that the plaintiffs inadequate settlement of his underlying claim at trial was a reasonable mitigation of damages in the professional malpractice action against his treating physician for failing to appear in court as promised because the plaintiff and his attorney were threatened with a litigation catastrophe