In Loyola Marymount University v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (1990) 219 Cal. App. 3d 1217, the insured university was sued for damages in the underlying action by two former employees, one a tenured professor, the other a baseball coach. The professor was dismissed after marrying another faculty member while still a Jesuit priest; the coach was discharged on vague charges of "negligence." (Id. at pp. 1220-1221.) Both alleged wrongful termination together with (in one case) invasion of privacy (the professor's marriage) and (in the other) defamation (publishing false accusations about the coach's performance). (Ibid.) The insurer rejected the university's demand that it provide a defense in the litigation under its liability policy on the ground the suits fell within the ERP exclusion of the policy; the university then filed suit against its insurer for declaratory relief and damages. After the trial court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, a panel of the Second Appellate District affirmed. The appellate court reasoned that the " 'offenses' alleged in the state court complaints, occurring as part and parcel of allegedly wrongful termination of the plaintiffs' employment, plainly were directly related to the university's employment of the third party plaintiffs, and hence were clearly within the language of the ERP exclusion . . . ." (Loyola, supra, at p. 1223.) The Loyola court went on to reject expressly the insured's contention that the ERP exclusion did not apply because the events in suit occurred after the employment relationship had ceased to exist. "The asserted distinction is unavailing," it wrote. (Loyola, supra, 219 Cal. App. 3d 1217 at p. 1223.) "Even though postemployment defamations would involve injuries occurring after the employment , the offenses would still fall clearly within the policy exclusion, as either 'directly or indirectly related to the employment . . . .' Insured's contention, that this language can (or must) be read as limited to injuries sustained when the employee is still employed, is semantically unreasonable and unacceptable." (Ibid.)