1 ATTORNEYS FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING INSURANCE POLICY NON-COVERED CLAIMS: WHO PAYS? I. INTRODUCTION Joseph F. Cunningham with James N. Markels * In 2005, the U.S. property/casualty insurance industry generated $437,709, in net premiums written. 1 Of the top ten U.S. carriers, nearly all had created in-house law firms in metropolitan areas to lessen the claims-handling/litigation costs so paramount an element of their business costs. 2 Indeed, it is difficult to name another commercial enterprise that devotes so much money to payment of attorneys fees. 3 At the same time, commentators on the legal profession have indicated that moneymaking has become the profession s driving issue..., the driving goal 4 and that the emphasis has become the priority of moneymaking. 5 Given this growing tension between the interests of insurers and their insureds, it is surprising that relatively little scholarly or academic work has addressed the significant issue of whether or not insurers are entitled to recover attorneys fees and costs expended by them when defending cases that involve factual allegations that fall outside the terms and conditions of their insureds policies. The lack of critical regard for this topic cannot be rationalized by concluding only insignificant sums of money are involved, because many disputes between insurer and insured over the obligation to pay defense counsel involve millions of dollars. 6 With this somewhat odd indifference by parties to this far-reaching legal and business issue, it is appropriate to look at the major cases on this topic from the past few years. Case law is not abundant on this topic. But those jurisdictions both state and federal that have addressed the issue * Joseph F. Cunningham is the owner of Cunningham & Associates, PLC, an insurance defense law firm in Arlington, Virginia. James N. Markels was previously an associate with Cunningham & Associates, PLC. 1. Net Premiums Written, Top Property/Casualty Writers, United States 2005, 107 BEST S REVIEW 55, (2006). 2. See, e.g., Rodd Zolkos, Ward Identifies What Makes Some Insurers a Cut Above, BUS. INS., Aug. 21, 2000, 3. See, e.g., STEPHEN J. CARROLL ET AL., ASBESTOS LITIGATION 95 (2005) (reporting that in the expensive field of asbestos litigation, defense legal fees and expenses consumed more than $21 billion, about 31 percent of the funds spent by defendants and insurers on asbestos personal injury claims through 2002 ). 4. Kathryn Alfisi, Books in the Law: A Conversation with Joseph Goulden, WASH. LAW., June 2006, at 38, Joseph E. Ulrich, The Business of Law Practice Is Business, 18 J. CIV. LITIG. 29, (2006). 6. See CARROLL ET AL., supra note 3, at (reporting that the $21 billion spent on defense legal fees and expenses in asbestos litigation was partially caused by insurers and insureds disputing coverage issues).
2 70 BROOK. J. CORP. FIN. & COM. L. [Vol. 2 have done so in depth; with a polar disparity of opinion by a number of well-regarded courts. Part II of this article will analyze major cases that do not recognize the insurer s right to recovery. Part III will analyze major cases that do recognize the insurer s right to recovery. Finally, Part IV will compare the two different ways courts treat this issue and conclude that the rule recognizing the insurer s right to recovery is the better rule. II. MAJOR CASE LAW NOT RECOGNIZING A RIGHT TO RECOVERY A. FOURTH CIRCUIT INTERPRETING MARYLAND LAW In Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America, 7 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, interpreting Maryland law under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 8 recently tackled the issue of carrier entitlement to defense fees/costs. The insurer had paid out defense costs for both covered and uncovered claims, but then sought to recover the costs of defending the uncovered claims. 9 The court decided that allowing such partial recovery would significantly tip the scales in favor of the insurer, 10 and cause liability insurance to all but cease to function, 11 turning it instead into an up-front defense whose line-item costs would then be the subject of subsequent litigation. 12 This chamber-of-horrors argument is a bit extreme, given the broad obligation of an insurer in Maryland, and elsewhere, to fully defend both the covered and non-covered claims once a duty to indemnify potentially exists. 13 This principle of great benefit to the insured, coupled with the basic premise that an insurance policy is a contract whose particular language alone governs the duties and benefits conferred on both parties, 14 plus the court s silence on the insurer s right to ultimate restitution for noncovered claim defense, suggest an insured s potential windfall. The Perdue Farms panel gave little deference to any of these concepts. The opinion s author, Judge James Harvie Wilkinson III, is known as a particularly conservative judge on a very business-friendly, conservative 7. Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 448 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2006). 8. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). 9. Perdue Farms, 448 F.3d at Id. at Id. 12. Id. 13. Montgomery County Bd. of Ed. v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 840 A.2d 220, 226 (Md. App. 2003); Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 746 A.2d 935, 940 (Md. App. 2000). 14. See TOM BAKER, INSURANCE LAW AND POLICY: CASES, MATERIALS, AND PROBLEMS 25 (2003) (noting that the relationship between insurers and policyholders remains largely the province of contract law ).
3 2007] Attorney Fees Incurred in Defending Non-Covered Claims 71 court. 15 Therefore, the adoption of an industry-hostile, rigidly exclusionary rule in this case, buttressed by relatively banal generalities, appears odd. This is especially true, given an absence of controlling Maryland law on point and the case facts. The insured, Perdue, held a policy issued by Travelers to cover claims based upon violations of the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). 16 The plaintiff in the underlying class action alleged ERISA as well as wage- and hour-law violations. 17 Wage and hour claims were not covered under the Travelers policy. Nevertheless, the bulk of the allegations of wrongdoing related to such issues, and the bulk of the $10 million settlement of the case and $4.4 million in defense costs were attributable to those non-covered items. 18 The court reversed the district court s decision to have Travelers pay all settlement costs involving all claims made, reasoning correctly that the policy clearly did not respond to non-covered events. But it followed what has been termed the minority rule 19 by rejecting application of this analysis to the attorneys fees and costs expended to defend such extra-policy claims. 20 To bolster its reasoning that settlement-indemnification costs should not be borne entirely by Travelers, the court stated that to do otherwise, would turn the insurance policy on its head [and]... impose liability upon Travelers for claims that its insurance policy never covered. 21 It is puzzling that the court thought it was appropriate to split the settlement costs, with the insurer paying the costs for the covered claims and the insured paying the costs for the uncovered claims, but found this same reasoning did not apply to splitting the attorneys fees/costs. This seems especially odd, given the need for lower-court involvement in any necessary apportioning of covered and non-covered dollar amounts comprising the settlement. 22 Furthermore, Travelers had earlier put Perdue on notice: upon receipt of the underlying lawsuit from its insured, Travelers warned Perdue that it was reserving its rights under the policy as to both fees/costs and indemnification obligations. Travelers further stated that it 15. Neil A. Lewis, In List of Potential Justices, Many Kinds of Conservative, N.Y. TIMES, July 2, 2005, at A13 (characterizing Judge Wilkinson and his 4th Circuit colleague Judge J. Michael Luttig as indisputably conservatives ); Anna Palmer, Conservatives Fear 4th Circuit Is Slipping Away, LAW.COM, July 10, 2007, (stating that the 4th Circuit has long been a bastion of conservative rulings ). 16. Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C (2007); Perdue Farms, 448 F.3d at Perdue Farms, 448 F.3d at Id. at See Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Wallerich, No , 2007 WL , at *9 (D. Minn. Sept. 25, 2007) (referring to the rule embraced here as the minority rule ). 20. Perdue Farms, 448 F.3d at Id. at Id. at 264.
4 72 BROOK. J. CORP. FIN. & COM. L. [Vol. 2 intended to seek recovery of defense costs expended on non-covered claims defense. 23 B. ILLINOIS LAW In 2005, the Supreme Court of Illinois embraced the same minority view as Maryland. In General Agents Insurance Co. of America v. Midwest Sporting Goods Co., it reversed the Circuit and lower appellate courts, which had held an insurer was entitled to reimbursement of attorneys fees for defending a no-coverage case. 24 The underlying case was brought by the City of Chicago and Cook County against the insured for selling guns to inappropriate purchasers and alleged intentional wrongdoing and other noncovered acts. The City sought injunctive relief and punitive damages. 25 Nonetheless, a defense was provided under a reservation of rights that included the right to seek repayment of defense costs for non-covered claims. But the Illinois Supreme Court, while recognizing the majority of jurisdictions permit such recovery, 26 cited current Wyoming and Texas Supreme Court decisions that did not. 27 Both of those courts held that the absence of policy language permitting the insurer to recoup defense costs was fatal to the carrier s subsequent effort to recover them, despite its articulated reservation of rights to do so if appropriate. 28 The Illinois court adopted this reasoning on the premise that to do otherwise would allow the insurer to unilaterally modify its contract. 29 It went on to cite with approval Terra Nova Insurance Co. v. 900 Bar, Inc. 30 and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. FAG Bearings Corp. 31 While the latter case, in rejecting the insurer s claim for reimbursement, provided no thoughtful analysis, 32 the Third Circuit s opinion provides interesting reasoning: A rule permitting such recovery would be inconsistent with the legal principles that induce an insurer s offer to defend under [a] reservation of rights. Faced with uncertainty as to its duty to indemnify, an insurer offers a defense under reservation of rights to avoid the risks that an inept or 23. Id. at Gen. Agents Ins. Co. of Am. v. Midwest Sporting Goods Co., 828 N.E.2d 1092 (Ill. 2005). 25. Id. at Id. at Id. at 1101 (citing Shoshone First Bank v. Pac. Employers Ins. Co., 2 P.3d 510 (Wyo. 2000) and Tex. Ass n of Counties County Govt. Risk Mgt. Pool v. Matagorda County, 52 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2000)). 28. Shoshone, 2 P.3d at 517; Tex. Ass n of Counties, 52 S.W.3d at Gen. Agents, 828 N.E.2d at Id. (citing Terra Nova Ins. Co. v. 900 Bar, Inc., 887 F.2d 1213 (3d Cir. 1989)). 31. Gen. Agents, 828 N.E.2d at (citing Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. FAG Bearings Corp., 153 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 1998)). 32. Liberty Mut., 153 F.3d at 924.
5 2007] Attorney Fees Incurred in Defending Non-Covered Claims 73 lackadaisical defense of the underlying action may expose it to if it turns out there is a duty to indemnify. 33 The Illinois Supreme Court found this reasoning persuasive. 34 Practitioners know that it is speculative at best and removed from reality otherwise. In many cases the insurer who reserves its rights still undertakes to defend with counsel of its own choosing. 35 The insurance defense bar has been accused of many things over the decades, but inept or lackadaisical 36 is not a known label. Surely, chosen defense counsel would not be used more than once if it exhibited such traits. For that matter, any counsel who fail to vigorously represent their clients put their clients at risk and expose themselves to malpractice claims. 37 Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit in Perdue Farms also quoted this dubious reasoning. 38 The Illinois court also reasoned that implying an agreement to permit the insurer to recover attorneys fees for non-covered claims defense places the insured in the position of making a Hobson s choice between accepting the insurer s additional conditions on its defense or losing its right to a defense from the insurer. 39 This straw man of a Hobson s choice is not in accord with practice. Insurers generally do not pull coverage if an insured or its attorney disputes the content of a reservation-of-rights letter. 40 To do so puts the carrier at risk of paying all personal-counsel fees/costs for defending the underlying suit and the insured s prosecuting the subsequent coverage action, as well as a potential bad-faith claim. 41 Such a course comports with no reasonable 33. Terra Nova, 887 F.2d at Gen. Agents, 828 N.E.2d at See, e.g., Fed. Ins. Co. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, 748 F.Supp. 1223, 1228 (W.D. Mich. 1990) (holding that although the insurer reserved its rights under the policy, the insured was not entitled to insist on counsel of its choice at [the insurer s] expense ); L & S Roofing Supply Co., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 521 So.2d 1298, 1304 (Ala. 1988) ( The mere fact that the insurer chooses to defend its insured under a reservation of rights does not ipso facto constitute such a conflict of interest that the insured is entitled at the outset to engage defense counsel of its choice at the expense of the insurer. ). 36. Terra Nova, 887 F.2d at See, e.g., Am. Guar. & Liability Ins. Co. v. Timothy S. Keiter, P.A., 360 F.3d 13, 15 (1st Cir. 2004); Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Chuhak & Tecson, P.C., 84 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1996); Fein ex rel. Estate of Fein v. Chicago Ins. Co., No. 01 Civ , 2003 WL , at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2003). 38. Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 448 F.3d 252, 259 (4th Cir. 2006). 39. Gen. Agents, 828 N.E.2d at Instead of pulling coverage, an insurer that disputes coverage with its insured would more likely file suit for a declaratory judgment for its responsibilities under the policy. See, e.g., Transp. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Soil Tech Distrib., Inc., No. 4D , 2007 WL (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2007), where the insurer defended under a reservation of rights and then filed suit for declaratory judgment to determine whether it owed either a duty to defend or a duty to indemnify to the insured. 41. See, e.g., Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679, 684 (Fla. 2000) ( Florida law is clear that in any dispute which leads to judgment against the insurer and in favor of the insured, attorney s fees shall be awarded to the insured. ); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 18, 4102 (1999) (stating
6 74 BROOK. J. CORP. FIN. & COM. L. [Vol. 2 risk/reward analysis. Its erroneous premise hardly provides a reasoned basis for precluding the insurer from attempting to recover attorneys fees unrelated to covered claims. III. MAJOR CASE LAW RECOGNIZING A RIGHT TO RECOVERY A. CALIFORNIA LAW Less than a year before the Perdue Farms decision, the Supreme Court of California reached the opposite decision of the Perdue Farms court in Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. M.V. Transportation. 42 The facts in Scottsdale were similar to those in Perdue Farms. The insured, M.V. Transportation, was sued by a competitor alleging contractual breaches, unlawful business actions, misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition in the underlying case. None of these acts were covered by the Scottsdale policy. 43 Although the carrier did not believe the claims were covered by the policy s advertising injury provisions, the carrier nevertheless provided a defense because of the possibility of coverage, and advised in its reservation-of-rights letter that it would seek reimbursement of defense fees for causes of action raising no potential for coverage. 44 The trial court in Scottsdale s declaratory judgment action found a duty to defend and no right to reimbursement. 45 An intermediate appellate court affirmed, but the California Supreme Court reversed. 46 As in Perdue Farms, California law obligated the carrier to defend all claims if any involved are covered. 47 The court referenced the very broad existing case language that a potential for coverage is all that is required, and [m]oreover, that the precise causes of action pled by the... 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. 48 that in the context of property insurance, [t]he court upon rendering judgment against any insurer... shall allow the plaintiff a reasonable sum as attorney s fees to be taxed as part of the costs ); GA. CODE ANN (b.1) (2000) (stating in the context of motor vehicle liability insurance [i]n the event the insurer denies coverage and it is determined by declaratory judgment or other civil process that there is in fact coverage, the insurer shall be liable to the insured for legal cost and attorney s fees as may be awarded by the court ). 42. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. M.V. Transp., 115 P.3d 460 (Cal. 2005). 43. Id. at 463. Most other commercial general liability policies do not cover such acts either. See BAKER, supra note 14, at 417 (reproducing a sample commercial general liability policy). 44. Scottsdale, 115 P.3d at Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. (citing Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 419 P.2d 168 (Cal. 1966) and CNA Cas. of Cal. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 861 P.2d 1153 (Cal. 1986)).
7 2007] Attorney Fees Incurred in Defending Non-Covered Claims 75 Under California law, a duty to defend exists until extinguished by case resolution or declaratory judgment, and the right to reimbursement was believed to be restricted to prospective costs only. 49 On a prior remand the intermediate appellate court determined the carrier was entitled to attorneys fees only prospectively, because prior decisions by the court had found an obligation to defend, if not pay. 50 The California Supreme Court rejected this analysis and concluded that as no coverage existed for any claim, the carrier was entitled to reimbursement ab initio. 51 The court s rationale is worth considering: The insured pays for, and can reasonably expect, a defense against third party claims that are potentially covered by its policy, but no more. Conversely, the insurer does not bargain to assume the cost of defense of claims that are not even potentially covered. To shift these costs to the insured does not upset the contractual arrangement between the parties. Thus, where the insurer, acting under a reservation of rights, has prophylactically financed the defense of claims as to which it owed no duty of defense, it is entitled to restitution. Otherwise, the insured, who did not bargain for a defense of non-covered claims, would receive a windfall and would be unjustly enriched. 52 The Fourth Circuit decision in Perdue Farms failed to either cite this case or reference the reasoning expressed. Common sense supports the Scottsdale court s point that: Without a right of reimbursement, an insurer might be tempted to refuse to defend an action in any part especially an action with many claims that are not even potentially covered and only a few that are lest the insurer give, and the insured get, more than they agreed. 53 B. SIXTH CIRCUIT INTERPRETING OHIO LAW In United National Insurance Co. v. SST Fitness Corp., 54 the Sixth Circuit, interpreting Ohio law, concluded that attorneys fees were recoverable by the insurer after defense of uncovered claims related to patent and trademark infringement. It distinguished both the Wyoming 55 and Third Circuit 56 opinions as predicated on imprecise or untimely reservations of rights and followed the majority rule. 57 The court thus 49. Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court, 861 P.2d 1153 (Cal. 1993); Haskel Inc. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 520 (1995); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 32 (1994). 50. Scottsdale, 115 P.3d at Id. at Id. at Id. at United Nat l Ins. Co. v. SST Fitness Corp., 309 F.3d 914 (6th Cir. 2002). 55. Shoshone First Bank v. Pac. Employers Ins. Co., 2 P.3d 510 (Wyo. 2000). 56. Terra Nova Ins. Co. v. 900 Bar, Inc., 887 F.2d 1213 (3d Cir. 1989). 57. United Nat l Ins. Co., 309 F.3d at
8 76 BROOK. J. CORP. FIN. & COM. L. [Vol. 2 limited its holding to cases, where the insurer: 1) timely and explicitly reserves its rights to recoup... costs, and 2) provides specific and adequate notice of the possibility of reimbursement. 58 As the insured did not contest the carrier s specific notice of intent to recover fees/costs for uncovered claims, the court concluded an implied-in-fact contract between the parties existed, permitting recovery. 59 If the insured rejects this conditional defense, the court indicated the insured could proceed by itself with personal counsel defense of the underlying dispute, or file a declaratory judgment action. 60 This appears too harsh and the conclusion is unrelated to reality. Experience indicates insureds will do neither and need not! The issue can be resolved when the third-party claim is settled or adjudicated. The alternative courses put all expense that appears to be extra-contractual and unnecessary on the insured. Yet the Sixth Circuit s underlying conclusion that a carrier should not be required to pay for the defense of uncovered claims is basically correct if adequate notice is given the insured. C. FLORIDA LAW A Florida Court of Appeals decision in Colony Insurance Co. v. G&E Tires & Service, Inc. 61 approved reimbursement to a carrier for defending non-covered sexual discrimination claims under the insured s garage owners policy which specifically excluded such a risk. It pointed out that a duty to defend does not create coverage where coverage does not exist. 62 The carrier filed a declaratory judgment action on the coverage issue and prevailed. 63 The Florida appellate court then correctly concluded that the insurer was not entitled to fee reimbursement for its defense of partially covered claims. 64 But, for those claims clearly and entirely not covered, reimbursement was appropriate. The court relied on the policy language and said: With regard to defense costs for these claims, the insurer has not been paid premiums by the insured.... To attempt to shift them would not upset the arrangement. The insurer therefore has a right of reimbursement that is implied in law as quasi-contractual, whether or not it has one that is implied in fact in the policy as contractual Id. at Id. at Id. at Colony Ins. Co. v. G & E Tires & Serv., Inc., 777 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000). 62. Id. at Id. 64. Id. 65. Id.
9 2007] Attorney Fees Incurred in Defending Non-Covered Claims 77 Perhaps more pertinently, it reasoned: The courts should be consistent in encouraging insurance companies to properly meet their duty to defend [their] insured[s] against third party claims and minimize unnecessary claims to enforce policy coverage. However, where an insurer has properly met its duty and subsequently successfully challenges policy coverage, it should be entitled to the full benefit of such a challenge and be reimbursed for the benefits it bestowed, in good faith, to its insured. 66 Years of experience on both sides of coverage litigation confirms this position is sound. D. CALIFORNIA LAW: MIXED CLAIMS The above landmark cases, except for Perdue Farms, 67 involved instances when an absence of coverage appeared to exist as to all claims. 68 Consequently, our survey closes with a review of another mixed claims circumstance addressed by a prominent court. In Buss v. The Superior Court, 69 the California Supreme Court decided an insurer was entitled to reimbursement of defense costs as to those claims not covered under its policy, as opposed to those potentially covered, on a theory of implied-inlaw or quasi-contract recovery. It found that an enrichment of the insured by the insurer through the bearing of unbargained-for defense costs is inconsistent with the insurer s duty under the policy and therefore unjust. 70 It correctly placed the burden of proof on the insurer by a preponderance of the evidence to show the proper allocation. 71 The opinion is thorough and detailed; written by the generally liberal Justice Mosk. The Buss case involved some twenty-seven (27) claims, with the notunusual mix of some covered and some non-covered allegations. 72 It presents the most realistic scenario or real-world circumstances facing claims professionals and attorneys for both sides. Unlike most such cases, however, given California law on potential conflicts of interest when coverage issues arise, the carrier initially agreed to and did pay for 66. Id. at 1039 (quoting Knapp v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 932 F. Supp. 1169, 1172 (D. Minn. 1996)). 67. Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 448 F.3d 252, 255 (4th Cir. 2006) ( The parties agree that the policy covers claims for relief under ERISA, but that it does not extend to claims for violations of wage and hour laws. ). 68. See also Shoshone First Bank v. Pac. Employers Ins. Co., 2 P.3d 510, 514 (Wyo. 2000) ( Pacific acknowledged that the coverage of its policy extended to the claim for invasion of privacy because, at least potentially, that claim would qualify under the personal injury coverage.... Pacific contends that it is responsible for those defense costs attributable to the claim for invasion of privacy only. ). 69. Buss v. The Superior Court, 939 P.2d 766 (Cal. 1997). 70. Id. 71. Id. at Id. at 769.
10 78 BROOK. J. CORP. FIN. & COM. L. [Vol. 2 personal counsel for the insured s defense. 73 The case settled ultimately for $8.5 million with attorneys fees in excess of $1 million. 74 The trial and intermediate appellate courts found that the insurer was entitled to reimbursement of defense costs as to those claims not covered under its policy. 75 In affirming, Justice Mosk, in an exhaustive recitation of California case law, made the wise point that the insurer has a duty to defend all claims if some are covered in a typically mixed scenario, but with a potential for repayment as to some: [W]e can, and do, justify the insurer s duty to defend the entire mixed action prophylactically, as an obligation imposed by law in support of the policy. To defend meaningfully, the insurer must defend immediately. To defend immediately, it must defend entirely. It cannot parse the claims, dividing those that are at least potentially covered from those that are not.... The plasticity of modern pleading allows the transformation of claims that are at least potentially covered into claims that are not, and vice versa. The fact remains: As to the claims that are at least potentially covered, the insurer gives, and the insured gets, just what they bargained for, namely, the mounting and funding of a defense. But as to the claims that are not, the insurer may give, and the insured may get, more than they agreed, depending on whether defense of these claims necessitates any additional costs. 76 The court went on to point out that without the right to ultimately seek some reimbursement of extended costs in defending non-covered claims, an insurer might risk not defending any claims. Given a fair chance at some recovery, however, the economic risk of defending decreases; consequentially the instinct to refuse to defend an action in any part also decreases. 77 Justice Mosk recognized the economic motive prevalent in such disputes: It is as to defense costs that can be allocated solely to the claims that are not even potentially covered that the insurer has not been paid premiums by the insured. By contrast, the insurer has in fact been paid as to costs that can be allocated solely to the claims that are at least potentially covered. 78 The court s decision brims with very sound, elemental reasoning and balances what is fair to both the insurer and the insured. 73. See San Diego Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc y, Inc., 208 Cal. Rptr. 494 (1984). 74. Buss, 939 P.2d at Id. at Id. at 775 (internal citations omitted). 77. Id. at Id.
11 2007] Attorney Fees Incurred in Defending Non-Covered Claims 79 IV. COMPARISON AND CONCLUSION It is apparent the law governing the obligation of insurer and/or insured to pay attorneys fees in insurance policy coverage defenses will continue to develop without much consistency. The significant choices and issues presented remain to be resolved in most jurisdictions. A cautious application of the majority rule, as articulated by the California and Florida courts, 79 is the better-balanced approach. However, the more absolutist denial of fees to insurers under any circumstances, as seen in Perdue Farms and the other court decisions adhering to the minority position, 80 provides the virtue of simplicity. But this simplicity comes at a steep price. Practically, denial of attorneys fees to a carrier for defending uncovered claims encourages an insurer to refuse to defend the insured on borderline cases in order to minimize costs, often with the insured either financially unable or otherwise unwilling to contest such a decision. 79. See supra Part III. 80. See supra Part II.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added
2016 IL App (1st) 150810-U Nos. 1-15-0810, 1-15-0942 cons. Fourth Division June 30, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in
2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U No. 1-13-3918 SIXTH DIVISION May 6, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,
Case 3:09-cv-01222-MMH-JRK Document 33 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:09-cv-1222-J-34JRK
Case: 09-20311 Document: 00511062202 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 25, 2010 Charles
case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION CINDY GOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:11 CV 399 STATE FARM MUTUAL
Case: 11-20469 Document: 00511904997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 29, 2012 Lyle
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s London v. The Burlington Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 141408 Appellate Court Caption CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON,
Case 6:12-cv-00914-RBD-TBS Document 136 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 4525 TROVILLION CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC.; and CASA JARDIN CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE
Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 SUMMIT CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-295-T-17TGW
REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed April 3, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01365-CV UNITED MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellant V. ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS,
Rolling the Dice: Insurer s Bad Faith Failure to Settle within Limits By: Attorney Jeffrey J Vita and Attorney Bethany DiMarzio Clearly the obligation to accept a good-faith settlement within the policy
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Allocating Defense Costs Among Multiple Insurers and Between Covered and Uncovered Claims Methods of Allocation Among Insurers and Allocation to
Case 0:10-cv-00772-PAM-RLE Document 33 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Ideal Development Corporation, Mike Fogarty, J.W. Sullivan, George Riches, Warren Kleinsasser,
THE RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL Julie A. Shehane Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Telephone: 214-712 712-9546 Telecopy: 214-712 712-9540 Email: Julie.Shehane@cooperscully.com 2015 This
Pennsylvania Law on Advertising Injury Summary of Cases Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Brotech Corp., 857 F. Supp. 423 (E.D. Pa. 1994), aff'd, 60 F.3d 813, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 15297 (3d Cir. May 12, 1995)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-11035 (Summary Calendar) GLEN R. GURLEY and JEAN E. GURLEY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal
Case 4:14-cv-01527 Document 39 Filed in TXSD on 07/08/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 140713-U NO. 4-14-0713
Pennsylvania Superior Court Renders Pro-Policyholder Decision on Primary Insurer s Attempt to Obtain Reimbursement of Defense Costs By: Paul E. Del Vecchio* K&L Gates Henry W. Oliver Building 535 Smithfield
2015 IL App (1st 140790-U THIRD DIVISION March 25, 2015 No. 1-14-0790 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Case 2:14-cv-00797-BMS Document 16 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN WESTERN : HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff,
Case 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9 WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAMES CZECH and WILLIAMS BUILDING COMPANY, INC., Defendants. United States District Court
Affirmed and Opinion filed January 13, 2000. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-98-00234-CV UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant V. UNDERWRITERS AT INTEREST and STEVEN RICHARD BISHOP,
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION COPLEY ASSOCIATES, LTD., DECEMBER TERM, 2005 Plaintiff, NO. 01332 v. COMMERCE PROGRAM ERIE
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-3147 NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, 1452-4 N. MILWAUKEE AVENUE, LLC, GREAT CENTRAL INSURANCE
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2008 Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4856 Follow
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al. : Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #82] After
THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)
AN ANALYSIS OF MARYLAND LAW REGARDING AN INSURER S DUTY TO DEFEND INCLUDING AN ANALYSIS OF THE TYPES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BETWEEN AN INSURED AND THE INSURER THAT MAY REQUIRE THE INSURER TO ACCEPT AND
Case: 10-30886 Document: 00511566112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 9, 2011 Lyle
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT M. EDWARDS, JR. Jones Obenchain, LLP South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KATHRYN A. MOLL Nation Schoening Moll Fortville, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
2012 IL App (1st) 111507-U SIXTH DIVISION November 30, 2012 No. 1-11-1507 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Huizenga v. Auto-Owners Insurance, 2014 IL App (3d) 120937 Appellate Court Caption DAVID HUIZENGA and BRENDA HUIZENGA, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE,
Page 1 29 of 41 DOCUMENTS SAN DIEGO ASSEMBLERS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WORK COMP FOR LESS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. D062406 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-3381 Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corporation, doing business as Philadelphia Insurance Companies lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY : MAY TERM, 2004 & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, : No. 0621
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 03-11688 D. C. Docket No. 99-01319-CV-S-N FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2004 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK
Case 2:08-cv-04597-LDD Document 17 Filed 02/05/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUZANNE BUTLER, Individually and as : Administratrix of the Estate
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION JOHN FRAZIER HUNT, : DECEMBER TERM, 2004 Plaintiff, : No. 2742 v. : (Commerce Program) NATIONAL
Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WESTPORT INSURANCE Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, of McHenry County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. No. 04--MR--53
REL:07/31/2009 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
Indemnity Agreements & California s Crawford Decision: Its Implications and Strategies for Defense Prepared for the Construction Law Section Meeting at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Federation of Defense
Case 7:12-cv-00148-HL Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 11 CHRISTY LYNN WATFORD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
Case: 14-60770 Document: 00513129690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee United States Court of Appeals
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 09CA0830 Arapahoe County District Court No. 08CV1981 Honorable Michael Spear, Judge Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2013 Case Summaries Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Katelyn J. Hepburn University of Montana School of Law, email@example.com
Case: 14-10913 Date Filed: 12/15/2014 Page: 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10913 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-01066-MSS-TBM GEICO GENERAL
Page 1 1 of 20 DOCUMENTS Colony Insurance Company v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, and Industrial Maintenance and Mechanical, Inc.; Geogia-Pacific, LLC v. Colony Insurance Company
Tiara Condominium: The Demise of the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation and Impact on the Property Damage Requirement in a General Liability Policy By Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant
-2- The Duty to Defend Inextricably Intertwined Actions ABOUT THE AUTHOR Bryan M. Weiss Bryan M. Weiss is a Partner in the Los Angeles office of Murchison & Cumming, LLP. Mr. Weiss is Co-Chair of the firm's
Filed 5/16/13; pub. order 6/12/13 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ---- STEVE SCHAEFER, Plaintiff and Respondent, C068229 (Super.
Case 3:06-cv-00073-D Document 32 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 22 PageID 1383 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Plaintiff, VS. NATIONAL
Property Insurance By: Michael S. Sherman Chuhak & Tecson P.C. Chicago Extra-Contractual Damages Against Insurers: What is the Statute of Limitations? Background The Illinois Legislature has provided a
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows
Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship [click] By Bruce A. Campbell 1 Introduction In most areas of the practice of law, there are a number of ethical issues that arise on a frequent
[J-119-2012] [MO Saylor, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT HERD CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.C., v. Appellee STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant No. 35 MAP 2012 Appeal
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO FRANCIS GRAHAM, ) No. ED97421 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Steven H. Goldman STATE
Goodridge v. Hewlett Packard Company Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARLES GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-07-4162 HEWLETT-PACKARD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, VS. Plaintiff, WILLBROS CONSTRUCTION (U.S.) LLC, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-4634 MEMORANDUM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1635 WELLS FARGO EQUIPMENT FINANCE, INCORPORATED, v. Plaintiff - Appellee, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; STATE FARM MUTUAL
NOTICE Decision filed 01/23/14. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588
Page 1 of 5 Portfolio Media. Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 firstname.lastname@example.org Obtaining Indemnity Through Effective
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CCB-11-CV-00145 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: PATRICK J. DIETRICK THOMAS D. COLLIGNON MICHAEL B. KNIGHT Collignon & Dietrick, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JOHN E. PIERCE Plainfield, Indiana
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-3601 J.E. Jones Construction Co.; The Jones Company Custom Homes, Inc., Now known as REJ Custom Homes, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. Appeal from
Case: 12-16065 Date Filed: 09/19/2013 Page: 1 of 20 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-16065 D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cv-14312-KMM BETTY BOLLINGER, versus
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA. v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY et al Doc. 324 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U FOURTH DIVISION March 28, 2013 No. 1-12-0898 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Revisiting The Duty to Defend After the Exhaustion of the Policy Limits Introduction The duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are distinct duties with the duty to defend wider in scope than the duty
EXPLORING THE SELF-INSURED - INSURER RELATIONSHIP I. INTRODUCTION By: Jay Barry Harris and Hema Patel Mehta Fineman Krekstein & Harris, P.C. 30 S. 17 th Street, Suite 1800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-893-9300
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY ATTORNEYS LIABILITY PROTECTION ) SOCIETY, INC., a Risk Retention Group, ) ) Plaintiff / Counterclaim ) Defendant, ) ) v. ) ) JAY
Case 8:10-cv-02549-EAJ Document 20 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID 297 TORREY CRAIG, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION vs. Case No.: 8:10-CV-2549-T-EAJ
SCHALLER, J. The plaintiffs 2 appeal from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Insurance Company of Greater New York, in this declaratory judgment action concerning a dispute about the defendant
Case 3:07-cv-06160-MLC-JJH Document 80 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 15 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : LAUREN KAUFMAN, et al., : CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-6160 (MLC) :
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
Case :-cv-0-lb Document Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA San Francisco Division EYEXAM OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation; and LUXOTTICA RETAIN NORTH