A policyholder is sued by a plaintiff alleging four distinct theories. The policyholder’s liability insurer does the right thing to resolve its coverage obligations by defending its insured, intervening in the suit, moving to bifurcate proceedings and securing a declaratory ruling that its policy provides potential coverage for only one of the four claims. Because there is potential coverage for that remaining claim, the insurer continues to defend.
October 24, 2019 Practice Points
Where the Only Potentially Covered Claim Is Dismissed, Can the Insurer Withdraw the Defense?
Wisconsin appellate court finds that dismissal did not end potential for coverage or the duty to defend.
By Todd Smith
Later in the case the policyholder seeks summary judgment dismissing all claims against it. The court grants the motion dismissing three of the four claims, including the only potentially-covered claim.
Because there is no remaining theory under which the insurer could become obligated to indemnify the policyholder, can the insurer withdraw from the defense and seek dismissal from the suit?
So What Happens?
In a thoughtful decision, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the answer is no. Anderson v. Kayser Ford, Inc., and Regent Ins. Co., Intervenor, 2019 WI App 9 (February 7, 2019)
In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that even reasonable policyholders may not fully understand how the policy would apply in these circumstances and that a decision requiring the insurer to continue to defend in this situation is counterintuitive and potentially unfair.
Nonetheless, the court reviewed prior precedent and noted that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the duty to defend continues until the potentially covered claim has been dismissed on the basis of a settlement or litigated to the point of finality. Here, the potentially covered claim had not been settled (it has been dismissed, after all) and it had not been litigated to conclusion, as the plaintiff could still appeal the dismissal ruling, making it a non-final order.
The Basis for the Court’s Decision
The court made clear that its decision was based on its view of prior Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent, which broadly stated the principle that an insurer cannot rely on a lower court determination of no coverage until that order became final through exhaustion of the appellate process.
In this case, because the insurer could not rule out that the order dismissing the one potentially covered claim would be reversed on appeal and that the plaintiff could subsequently prevail against the policyholder on that claim, the insurer was obligated to continue to defend the action. The court rejected the insurer’s position that it could take up the defense of its insured after the potentially covered claim was reinstated on appeal without breaching its duties to its insured.
The Court of Appeals’ decision in this matter notes that its holding is dependent on its view of binding Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent, stating that if it were “writing on a blank slate” its decision might be different.
Based on that precedent, this invitation to the parties to seek review will likely be followed, potentially giving more clarity to law regarding an insurer’s duty to defend in similar situations.
Todd Smith is a shareholder with Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., in Madison, Wisconsin.
Copyright © 2019, American Bar Association. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the American Bar Association, the Section of Litigation, this committee, or the employer(s) of the author(s).