Arceneaux et al v. Amstar et al.
Year 2015
Court Louisiana Supreme Court
Case Number 2015-C-588
Issue
  • Duty to Defend
State
  • Louisiana

The duty to defend in long-latency cases may not be “pro-rated.” This rule is consistent with the insurance policy language at issue and well-settled Louisiana jurisprudence, but also with principles of equity, fairness and public policy. The duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are distinct duties to which different standards apply. The rule is that if any of the claims in the action are potentially covered by the insurance policy, the insurance company must defend the entire action and may not “pro-rate” its defense obligation. UP reminded the court that the duty to defend “is not merely ancillary to the duty to indemnify but, rather, is an integral component of the raft of protection afforded by a liability policy. Many insureds purchase liability insurance for the peace of mind that comes with knowing that their insurer will defend them if they are sued in an action that comes within the scope of protection provided by their policy.” Accordingly, the duty to defend is often referred to as “litigation insurance.” It is broader in scope than the duty to indemnify.

Related Docs
Author UP's bried was authored pro bono by Paul E. Breene, Esq. and Ann V. Kramer of Reed Smith, LLP and Michael J. deBarros, Esq., Todd A. Rossi, Esq., and Mark Mese, Esq. of Kean Miller LLP
Related Cases
Aloha Petroleum v. National Union Fire Insurance Company
Year: 2024
Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
Case Number: SCCQ-23-0000515
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Hawaii

In the Aloha Petroleum case, the Hawaii Supreme Court accepted a certified question from a Hawaii Federal District Court asking: (1) For any insurance policy defining a covered “occurrence” in part as an “accident,” can an “accident” include recklessness? and (2) For an “occurrence” insurance…
Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Medline Industries, Inc. et al.
Year: 2023
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District
Case Number: 1-23-0841
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Illinois

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders addresses the question of whether a liability insurer has a duty to defend an underlying lawsuit alleging only willful and intentional wrongdoing by an insured defendant but when liability could be established by proof of non-intentional, accidental conduct. Drawing…
Travelers Insurance Company, et al. v. Bodell Construction Company
Year: 2023
Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
Case Number: SCCQ-22-0000658
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Hawaii

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders addresses a critical question that has split state high courts around the country: whether an insurance company can seek reimbursement or recoupment of previously paid defense fees and costs when the insurance policy contains no express provision allowing for…
QBE Insurance Corporation v. The Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada and Lamplight Village @ Centennial Springs Homeowners Association
Year: 2022
Court: Nevada Supreme Court
Case Number: 84181
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Nevada

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders addresses the special and ongoing obligations imposed on an insurance company that has undertaken the legal defense of its insured in an underlying tort lawsuit.