Thus, because the focus is on the nature of the underlying suit, the relevant time period for determining the status of the insured for purposes of the exclusion should be when the claim is made. Here, there is no contention that the underlying actions are collusive. Moreover, the discharged employees are not seeking coverage under the policy. When the underlying actions were brought against the Township, and hence by the time the claims were made, the plaintiffs were no longer employed by it. It is difficult to imagine a circumstance, short of a conspiracy to defraud, in which a wrongful discharge suit, brought by a former employee, could be perceived as constituting a collusive act.
Costs are to be taxed against appellee.