About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (April 2017 through August 2017)

handle is hein.ali/aliliabil9922 and id is 1 raw text is: LIABILITY INSURANCE (DRAFTS) CHAPTER 2. MANAGEMENT OF POTENTIALLY INSURED LIABILITY CLAIMS TOPIC 1. DEFENSE § 13. Conditions Under Which the Insurer Must Defend Or.2016. Com. (a) cit. in sup. (citing § 13 of T.D. No. 1, 2016). General contractor for a townhome development brought an action against insurer of subcontractor, alleging that, because contractor was named as an insured under subcontractor's liability-insurance policy, insurer had a duty to defend contractor in a negligence action brought by development's homeowners association. The trial court entered judgment for contractor; the court of appeals affirmed. Affirming, this court held that insurer had a duty to defend. Citing Restatement of Liability Insurance § 13, Comment a, (T.D. No. 1, 2016), the court relied on the four-corners rule and determined that the allegations against contractor in the underlying action's complaint asserted a claim covered by subcontractor's policy. West Hills Development Company v. Chartis Claims, Inc. Oregon Automobile Insurance Company, 385 P.3d 1053, 1055. § 22. Defense-Cost-Indemnification Policies D.Utah, 2016. Quot. in sup. (quoting § 22 of Disc. Draft, 2015). Clients of investment-advisement firm, as assignees of firm, sued firm's insurer, alleging that insurer breached its fiduciary duty to settle clients' claims against firm at the policy limits. This court granted in part defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that defendant did not owe fiduciary obligations to firm under the policy, nor did it accept heightened responsibilities to act as firm's fiduciary. The court cited a draft of Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance § 22 in noting that the policy was a defense-cost-indemnification policy, which required defendant to pay firm's defense costs but did not impose on defendant a duty to defend, and such policies typically did not impose on the insurer the type of fiduciary obligations that arose where the insurer also undertook the obligation to defend. Morden v. XL Specialty Insurance, 177 F.Supp.3d 1320, 1341. wA L a iFor earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.