bodily injury claims that were alleged to be the result of physical assault and battery. An we noted, providing for such insurance is not against public policy, and some courts have not precluded coverage even where the insured has been convicted of a crime. See, e.g., Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Machniak (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 638, 641, 600 N.E.2d 266 (felonious-assault conviction does not affirmatively establish intent to harm for purposes of insurance coverage). {¶ 112} We have previously stressed the general presumption that arises in connection -with insurance contracts. Specifically, an item not “clearly excluded from the operation of such contract is included in the operation thereof.” WAS, Inc. v. Alea London, Ltd., 161 Ohio App.3d 111, 2005-Ohio-2533, 829 N.E.2d 727, at ¶ 9 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 113} The exclusions from coverage in the
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 an insurer had no duty to defend in the absence of any cause of action amounting to a potentially covered offense under the  insurance policy holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend 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 coverage arguably existed under an insurance policy for claims against an employer and employees for an alleged assault and battery of bar patrons and that the insurer had a duty to defend