Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): underlying action has determined “in fact” that Hanft personally profited. The Court rejects this interpretation of the exclusion. The Diehls cite to several, mostly unpublished, decisions from other jurisdictions in support of their argument (Doc. 64 at 22-23), but contrary to the Diehls’ contention, these cases do not hold that the “in fact” language requires a final adjudication in the underlying action. In each of these cases the court did not require a final adjudication by the underlying factfinder, but rather found that the allegations and evidence presented was not sufficient to support application of the exclusion without further underlying proceedings. See PMI Mortgage Ins. Co. v. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., No. C 02-1774, 2006 WL 825266 at *7 (N.D.Cal. Mar.29, 2006) (<HOLDING>); Federal Ins. Co. v. Cintas Corp., No. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the judgment or other final adjudication language of a dishonesty exclusion was satisfied by a criminal conviction (B) holding that the term in fact within the context of the exclusion here should be read to require either a final adjudication including a judicial adjudication or at a minimum at least some evidentiary proof (C) holding that guilty plea to crime of fraud satisfied judgment or final adjudication language of dishonesty exclusion (D) holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits (E) holding that case was justiciable when at least some of the appellants have a sufficient personal stake  in its adjudication
Output (English): holding that the judgment or other final adjudication language of a dishonesty exclusion was satisfied by a criminal conviction