Third Circuit Holds that Duty to Indemnify “Follows” Duty to Defend

Jeffrey J. Vita | Saxe Doernberger & Vita In a win for policyholders, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling, which held that the duty to indemnify follows the duty to defend where a settlement precludes a determination on the facts of the case relative to liability and apportionment.… Continue reading Third Circuit Holds that Duty to Indemnify “Follows” Duty to Defend

How You Plead Allegations to Trigger Liability Insurer’s Duties is Critical

David Adelstein | Florida Construction Legal Updates How you plead allegations in your lawsuit to trigger duties of a liability insurance carrier is a critical consideration.  If the complaint is not pled appropriately, it can result in the carrier NOT owing a duty to defend its insured, which is the party(ies) you are suing. If there… Continue reading How You Plead Allegations to Trigger Liability Insurer’s Duties is Critical

Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

Sarah Odia and Scott Thomas | Payne & Fears On Oct. 28, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court in Zurich American Insurance Company v.. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 66, held that an insured can rely on extrinsic facts to show that an insurer has a duty to defend the insured, as long as… Continue reading Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

Out of Sight, But Not Out of Mind: Facts Outside the Pleadings and the Duty to Defend

John Corbett | Barnes & Thornburg Does an insurance company have a duty to defend a lawsuit against your company where the actual facts of the claim are within coverage, but the complaint fails to mention potentially covered facts? Perhaps surprisingly, the answer depends on the state law that governs the questions of insurance policy… Continue reading Out of Sight, But Not Out of Mind: Facts Outside the Pleadings and the Duty to Defend

Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action

Jatin Patel | Newmeyer Dillion It has long been the law in California that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and that the mere possibility of coverage triggers a duty to defend.   Nevertheless, insurers still periodically ignore this clear principle and attempt to narrow the scope of the duty… Continue reading Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action

%d bloggers like this: