Duty to defend
The definition of a liability insurer’s duty to defend under the Law of California has been well summarized by what the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly described as “familiar principles.”[1] “[T]he duty to defend is contractual.”[2]
Duty to defend arises from allegations of a complaint and extrinsic facts. “If any facts stated or fairly inferable in the complaint, or otherwise known or discovered by the insurer, suggest a claim potentially covered by the policy, the insurer’s duty to defend arises and is not extinguished until the insurer negates all facts suggesting potential coverage. On the other hand, if, as a matter of law, neither the complaint nor the known extrinsic facts indicate any basis for potential coverage, the duty to defend does not arise in the first instance.”[3] [F]acts known to the insurer and extrinsic to the third party complaint can generate a duty to defend, even though the face of the complaint does not reflect a potential for liability under the policy.”[4] “Any doubt as to whether the facts give rise to a duty to defend is resolved in the insured’s favor.”[5]
Duty to defend begins with potential indemnity coverage. “The defense duty arises upon tender of a potentially covered claim and lasts until the underlying lawsuit is concluded, or until it has been shown that there is no potential for coverage. On the other hand, in an action wherein none of the claims is even potentially covered because it does not even possibly embrace any triggering harm of the specified sort within the policy period caused by an included occurrence, the insurer does not have a duty to defend.”[3] “[F]or an insurer, the existence of a duty to defend turns not upon the ultimate adjudication of coverage under its policy of insurance, but upon those facts known by the insurer at the inception of a third party lawsuit. Hence, the duty may exist even where coverage is in doubt and ultimately does not develop.”[6] “An insurer must defend its insured against claims that create a potential for indemnity under the policy. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, and it may apply even in an action where no damages are ultimately awarded. Determination of the duty to defend depends, in the first instance, on a comparison between the allegations of the complaint and the terms of the policy. But the duty also exists where extrinsic facts known to the insurer suggest that the claim may be covered. Moreover, that the precise causes of action pled by the third party complaint may fall outside policy coverage does not excuse the duty to defend where, under the facts alleged, reasonably inferable, or otherwise known, the complaint could fairly be amended to state a covered liability.”[2]
Duty to defend ends upon conclusive proof of no potential indemnity coverage. “When the duty, having arisen, is extinguished by a showing that no claim can in fact be covered, it is extinguished only prospectively and not retroactively."[3] “The defense duty is a continuing one, arising on tender of defense and lasting until the underlying lawsuit is concluded or until it has been shown that there is no potential for coverage."[6]
Duty to defend extends to all claims. “Once the defense duty attaches, the insurer is obligated to defend against all of the claims involved in the action, both covered and noncovered, until the insurer produces undeniable evidence supporting an allocation of a specific portion of the defense costs to a noncovered claim.”[5]
Duty to defend rationale. “It rests on the fact that the insurer has not been paid premiums by the insured for [such] a defense. The insurer has not contracted to pay defense costs for claims that are not even potentially covered.”[3] “Imposition of an immediate duty to defend is necessary to afford the insured what it is entitled to: the full protection of a defense on its behalf. The insured’s desire to secure the right to call on the insurer’s superior resources for the defense of third party claims is, in all likelihood, typically as significant a motive for the purchase of insurance as is the wish to obtain indemnity for possible liability. As a consequence, California courts have been consistently solicitous of insureds’ expectations on this score.”[7]
References
- ↑ Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076, 1081 (Horace Mann) ; Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (1993) 6 Cal.4th 287, 295 (Montrose); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. MV Transp. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 643, 654 (MV Transp.).
- 1 2 MV Transp., supra, 36 Cal.4th at 654.
- 1 2 3 4 MV Transp., supra, 36 Cal.4th at 655 (citations, quotation marks and ellipses omitted).
- ↑ Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th at 296 (citations, quotation marks and ellipses omitted).
- 1 2 Horace Mann, supra, 4 Cal.4th at 1081.
- 1 2 Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th at 295 (citations, quotation marks and ellipses omitted).
- ↑ Montrose, supra, 6 Cal.4th at 295-96 (citations, quotation marks and ellipses omitted).
