an “occurrence.” See Safeco Ins. Co. v. Andrews, 915 F.2d 500, 502 (9th Cir.1990) (finding alleged misrepresentations were not “occurrence” as defined under insurance policy); Dykstra v. Foremost Ins. Co., 14 Cal.App.4th 361, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 543, 545 (1993) (finding intentional or fraudulent acts are deemed purposeful rather than accidental and, therefore, are not covered under a comprehensive general liability policy); M.L. Foss, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 885 P.2d 284, 285 (Colo.Ct.App.1994) (“[A]lleged misrepresentations made in connection with the sale of property does not constitute an ‘occurrence’ as that term is uniformly defined in comprehensive general liability policies”); First Wyoming Bank, N.A. Jackson Hole v. Continental Ins. Co., 860 P.2d 1094, 1100 (Wyo.1993) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 15 We next address the negligent
holding that claims alleging negligent misrepresentation and failure to disclose seek economic damages not property damages within insureds policy holding that there is a duty to defend if any of the complaints allegations fall within the risk covered by the policy holding claims alleging misrepresentation do not fall within the coverage of a comprehensive general liability policy and thus the duty to defend is not triggered holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy holding that where claims are cast wholly within policy exclusion there is no duty to defend