Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tenn — concurring in part and dissenting in part

Summary

The separate opinion agrees that the nolo contendere plea would not be dispositive of whether the criminal-acts exclusion applies, but disagrees that the plea is inadmissible in the insurer's coverage dispute. It would admit the plea as relevant, nonconclusive evidence and allow the insured to offer competing evidence. The separate opinion reasons that the policy favoring plea bargaining is weaker in an insurance coverage action than in the victim's tort action, while the policy against indemnifying criminal conduct is directly implicated.