Facts Ultimately Proven in the Underlying Litigation Have No Bearing on an Insurer’s Duty to Defend
In Maryland and many other states coverage for defense or indemnity are determined from the allegations in the suit brought against the insured for which it seeks defense and indemnity. A declaratory relief suit seeks an order from the court that the insurer owes the insured defense or defense and indemnity. The pleading of the declaratory relief suit and the underlying action control the decision.
In Robert A. Casero, Jr.; Catherine Mary Hattenburg v. Chicago Title Insurance Company; Fidelity National Title Group, Inc., No. 18-1234, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (December 11, 2018) the Appellants, Robert A. Casero, Jr. and Catherine Mary Hattenburg, appealed the district court’s orders granting the Appellees’ (Chicago’s and Fidelity’s) motion to dismiss the declaratory relief complaint and denying reconsideration. The suit asked the court to render a declaratory judgment that the Appellees had a duty under a title insurance policy to defend and indemnify the Appellants from various claims asserted by their neighbors.
On review the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals must assume all well-pled facts to be true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Under Maryland law, which is applicable here, in determining whether an insurer has a duty to defend, a court must determine the coverage under the terms of the policy and determine whether the allegations in the underlying complaint bring the claim within the policy’s coverage.
The inquiry focuses on the language and requirements of the policy and the allegations of the underlying suit. The facts ultimately proven in the underlying litigation have no bearing on an insurer’s duty to defend.
A court determines whether there is any potentiality of coverage, i.e. whether the allegations in the complaint could possibly give rise to coverage under the policy. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and arises when allegations of a law suit demonstrate any claim potentially covered by policy. Where a potentiality of coverage is uncertain from the allegations of a complaint, any doubt must be resolved in favor of the insured.
The Fourth Circuit thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that, based on the allegations of the underlying complaint, there was no potentiality of coverage under the policy. Therefore, the Appellees had no duty to defend the Appellants in the underlying suit.
Appellate pleadings are called “briefs” but are seldom brief. Appellate decisions often emulate the briefs filed by the lawyers by being anything but brief. The Fourth Circuit refused to follow the rule of thumb and issued a truly brief decision that found no potentiality for coverage and, therefore, no need for the insurers to defend.
© 2018 – Barry Zalma
This article, and all of the blog posts on this site, digest and summarize cases published by courts of the various states and the United States. The court decisions have been modified from the actual language of the court decisions, were condensed for ease of reading, and convey the opinions of the author regarding each case.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 50 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and email@example.com.
Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award.
Books from Full Court Press
Insurance Law Deskbook: Learn the insurance basics that are essential to every civil practitioner. The Insurance Law Deskbook is intended to help law students, practitioners, insurance lawyers, professional claims personnel, insured persons, and anyone else involved in insurance. The book, published for the first time under Full Court Press, includes the full texts or digests of insurance-related decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Courts of Appeal, state appellate courts, and foreign courts that have molded the American insurance law, as well as vital explanatory chapters, historical context, form letters, and more.
California Insurance Law Deskbook: California has long led the way when it comes to insurance jurisprudence in the United States, and few know more about California insurance law than Barry Zalma. The California Insurance Law Deskbook is intended to help law students, practitioners, insurance lawyers, professional claims personnel, insured persons, and anyone else involved in insurance. Similar to Barry Zalma’s general Insurance Law Deskbook, this title focuses on the state where the author has long resided and practiced as an expert in California law. The book, published for the first time under Full Court Press, includes the full texts or digests of insurance-related decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Courts of Appeal, and California appellate courts, as well as vital explanatory chapters and historical context.
Insurance Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Deskbook: Understand the relationship between insurance, the tort of bad faith, and why punitive damages are awarded to punish insurers. Previously, a person suing an insurance company in the United States could only recover contract damages, but when the tort of bad faith was created by the courts contract law was enormously affected, allowing insureds to sue insurers for both contract and tort damages, including punitive damages. Read a thoughtful analysis of how punitive damages apply in the United States to insurance bad faith suits, and why some states allow judges and juries to award punitive damages against insurers in civil litigation.