The claims in the 18 underlying actions that MetLife trained its employees to defraud customers into buying certain life insurance policies do not qualify as an "occurrence" within the meaning of the various policies issued to MetLife, and are therefore not covered, notwithstanding that the underlying actions include a theory of negligent hiring and supervision (see, Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Creative Hous., 88 N.Y.2d 347, 351-352; U.S. Underwriters Ins. v. Val-Blue Corp., 85 N.Y.2d 813, 823; Fuller Co. v. United States Fid. Guar. Co., 200 A.D.2d 255, 259-260, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 806). In addition, the policies' exclusionary clauses for professional services and insurance-related services bars coverage of the deceptive sales claims, and therefore, under the above authorities, the negligent supervision claims arising therefrom. However, the circumstances surrounding the sending of the allegedly defamatory letter in the nineteenth underlying action, Dong Li, cannot be determined from the record, and thus Westchester has not established that the defamation claim therein falls within one of its professional services exclusions.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.