Plaintiffs appealed from the grant of summary judgment to defendant on plaintiffs’ equitable garnishment action, after plaintiffs obtained a judgment against defendant’s insured, after defendant denied coverage under a business-liability policy. Plaintiffs argued defendant had a duty to defend its insured, whose failure to deliver college degrees to plaintiffs constituted “property damage.”
Where insurer did not owe a duty to defend for insured’s defrauding of plaintiffs because their monetary loss did not constitute “tangible property” under insurer’s policy, plaintiffs’ equitable garnishment action failed as duty to indemnify was of narrower scope than duty to defend.
Judgment is affirmed.
Spencer v. Hartford Cas. (MLW No. 72149/Case No ED106337 – 8 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Hess, J.) Appealed from Circuit Court, City of St. Louis (Joan J. Moriarty, J.) (Joseph R. Dulle, for appellant) (Michael Belancio and William J. Foland, Jr., for respondent)