duty to defend

Subscribe to duty to defend via RSS

One issue courts often confront is the question of what they may properly consider in determining whether or not an insurer has a duty to defend an insured in a given set of circumstances. In many jurisdictions, the courts may consider only the underlying complaint and the terms and conditions of the policy, and nothing else. In a recent decision, an Illinois intermediate appellate court, applying Illinois law, held that the trial court properly considered extrinsic matter – in this case, the insured’s description of events in his notice of claim to the insurer—in holding that the policy’s Cyber Events exclusion precluded coverage, even though the underlying complaint did not refer to the cybersecurity incident. The court’s decision raises some interesting questions, as discussed below.Continue Reading May a Court Consider Extrinsic Matter in Determining an Insurer’s Duty to Defend?

Regular readers know that a recurring topic I have explored on this site is the scope of the contractual liability exclusion found in many professional liability and management liability insurance policies. In prior posts I have argued that insurers sometimes apply the exclusion over-broadly so as to exclude matters that I believe should otherwise be covered under the policy. However, in a recent appellate ruling, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that as a result of the application of the contractual liability exclusion, a solar panel engineering company’s E&O insurer did not have a duty to defend the company in an underlying arbitration proceeding. As discussed below, I believe the appellate court’s reasoning is sound and that the case represents an example not only of when the exclusion may be applied appropriately but also of the appropriate limits of the exclusion’s reach. A copy of the Ontario court’s September 10. 2021 opinion can be found here.
Continue Reading Thinking About the Contractual Liability Exclusion

missAs part of our beat here at the The D&O Diary, we read a lot of judicial opinions. We are quite accustomed to the fact that the case outcomes can be and often are all over the map. Just the same, every now and then we read a decision that really makes us scratch our heads. That was our reaction when we read Southern District of Mississippi Chief Judge Louis Guirola, Jr.’s October 2, 2015 opinion in the Singing River Health Systems case (here), in which Judge Guirola, applying Mississippi law, held that when a fiduciary liability insurer defends its insured under a reservation of rights, the defense expense payments do not erode the policy’s limits of liability. A number of questions and concerns may fairly be raised about this decision, as discussed below. The Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog has an October 5, 2015 post about Judge Guirola’s decision, here.
Continue Reading Defense Costs Paid Under Reservation of Rights Do Not Erode Fiduciary Liability Policy’s Limit of Liability?

An insured’s guilty plea to criminal charges relieved his professional liability insurer of its duty under the policy to defend him against related civil claims, according to a June 18, 2013 Order by Southern District of Florida Judge Daniel Hurley. Judge Hurley’s decision is interesting because it addresses the question whether the court can consider…

There is a host of well established legal principles that govern insurers’ defense obligation under the standard liability insurance policy where the insurer has the duty to defend the insureds. But many professional liability insurance policies are not written on with the duty on the insurer to defend (which is usually described as a “duty…