Opinion ID: 43290
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Refusal to render professional services

Text: 22 United Fire first argues that, assuming the plaintiffs' allegations are otherwise included within the Endorsement's coverage, those allegations should be viewed as a refusal to perform instead of a failure to perform. United Fire distinguishes the two terms, focusing on the willfulness involved: refusing to perform is an affirmative act; failing to perform is an omission. However, since our review is limited to the state court petition and to the insurance policy, see Alert Centre, 967 F.2d at 163, United Fire's argument regarding this distinction is not persuasive. The petition plainly alleges that Hixson  failed to provide goods and services specified in the burial policy. (emphasis added). Whether post-petition information reveals that this failure was actually a refusal is irrelevant to whether United Fire must defend Hixson in the underlying litigation. See Lamar Adver., 396 F.3d at 660; Vaughn v. Franklin, 00-0291, p. 7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/28/01); 785 So.2d 79, 84 (Although the allegations of the petition may ultimately turn out to be incorrect or untrue, the insurer is still obligated to provide a defense.), writ denied, 01-1551 (La. 10/5/01); 798 So.2d 969. 23