 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Virtual Home Care9/4/2001
rary control of the property that manifests an indifference to the rights of the owner or the restoration of property commits theft).
Count XI alleges that Kiehler or someone at her direction wrongfully entered Intrepid's New Ulm office and removed property without Intrepid's consent. Again, this necessarily occurred after the sale of the property to Intrepid and while Kiehler was an Intrepid employee. Even were the VHC policy in effect when the alleged acts occurred, it would not have covered Kiehler who was not then acting as a VHC employee.
Count XIII and Count XIV allege that Kiehler told past clients of VHC and potential future clients of Intrepid that Intrepid's management was not trustworthy and that the clients therefore did not choose Intrepid to provide their health care. However, since Intrepid's management was necessarily in existence at the time Kiehler allegedly made these statements, she was an Intrepid employee, not a VHC employee, when she made them and was not covered by the policy.
Because the claims in the underlying action were not covered by the policy, there was no duty to defend and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|