underlying claim arises. The Diehls argue that this exclusion does not apply for a number of reasons. First, the Diehls claim that the loans made to Hanft were a debt to be repaid, not a profit, and that Hanft did not profit because he was attempting to repay the loans, which were not due in full until a year after his death. The Diehls’ argument is belied by their own allegations in the underlying complaint that Hanft “never intended to repay” the loans. (TAC ¶ 41.) Further, the underlying complaint states that, over seven years, Hanft made only a single payment of $10,000 toward the almost $800,000 owed to the Diehls. (TAC ¶¶ 17-18.) The allegations of the underlying complaint show that Hanft took money for personal use with no i 5, 2005 WL 1220746 at *12 (Ohio Ct.App. May 24, 2005) (<HOLDING>); St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Foster, 268
holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact holding that estoppel was a question of fact holding that the fact that an investigatory stop took place in a high crime area is pertinent to a terry analysis holding it is a question of fact holding exclusion inapplicable because there remains a question of whether any conversion in fact took place