United States: Too Soon! First Circuit Finds No Duty To Defend Before Suit Is Filed

Last Updated: January 6 2017
Article by Robert D. Helfand

Can something short of the filing of a complaint trigger an insurer's duty to defend? It's not an idle question. Uncertainty on this issue could produce an unintended breach, and, in some jurisdictions, breach of the duty to defend can result in a waiver of otherwise valid defenses to coverage.

In Sanders v. The Phoenix Ins. Co., No. 15-2539 (1st Cir. Dec. 7, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently took a hard line, predicting that Massachusetts courts would recognize a pre-suit duty to defend only in exceptional circumstances. But Sanders presents something of an anomaly: the duty to defend was not an important element of the plaintiff's case, and the court appears to have seized on it primarily as a convenient way to dispose of a dubious coverage claim. The real lesson of Sanders, therefore, is that insurers should take care to ensure that their policy language about defending claims accurately reflects their intentions.

Dear John Doe

The plaintiff in Sanders was the executor of his late wife's estate. He alleged that his wife had suffered from severe depression and anxiety, and had once attempted suicide. In 2011, after 16 years of marriage, she hired an attorney to represent her in divorce proceedings. Mr. Sanders's suit identified the lawyer only as "John Doe."

"With full knowledge" of his client's history and disabilities (he was also a licensed social worker), the attorney allegedly "seduced her and began a sexual relationship with her." Mr. Sanders claimed this relationship "exacerbated" his wife's psychological condition "through a series of break-ups and reunions," which caused her "severe emotional distress." In October 2011, after Doe broke a date with her, Mr. Sanders's wife "drank herself to death." The complaint alleged that "Doe's conduct was ... the precipitating cause" of the apparent suicide.

A year later, Mr. Sanders—acting as executor of his wife's estate—sent Mr. Doe a demand letter under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. Section 2 of that law prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade." Under Section 9, a claimant who intends to file a suit under the law must first deliver a written demand for relief. A bad faith rejection of the demand exposes the recipient to double or treble damages in any subsequent litigation.

Coverage Begins At Home

According to Mr. Sanders, Mr. Doe's "[s]exual liaisons took place in part at hotels and also at Doe's home." That home happened to be insured under a policy that provided $500,000 in liability coverage, and Mr. Doe gave his homeowner's insurer notice of the demand letter. There ensued a spirited debate over the meaning of several policy terms—none of which had to do with the duty to defend.

The insurer denied coverage, on two grounds. First, it contended that there had not been an "occurrence" within the meaning of the policy's insuring clause—because the policy defined "occurrence" as "an accident," and the death in question was not accidental. Second it asserted that the claim fell within the policy's professional services exclusion, which barred coverage for claims "arising out of the rendering or failing to render professional services."

A year later, Mr. Sanders served a second demand under the Consumer Protection Law—but this time, it was served directly on John Doe's insurer. The letter asserted that Mr. Doe—having "interjected" himself as the "protector" of Mr. Sanders's wife—owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure she did not hurt or kill herself. It contended that the estate's claim arose out of an "occurrence," within the meaning of Doe's policy, because it arose out of Doe's negligent failure to exercise such care. It also asserted that the professional services exclusion did not apply, because "sexual relations are not part of the provision of legal services."

Half A Loaf

Separately, Messrs. Sanders and Doe both advised the homeowner's insurer that they had agreed to participate in a mediation. Notwithstanding Mr. Sanders's view about the scope of "legal services," both Mr. Doe's former law firm and the issuers of the firm's professional liability policy had also agreed to participate. The homeowner's insurer declined to attend.

Several months later, the mediation produced a settlement. The professional liability insurers agreed to pay $500,000 in consideration of a release of all claims against the law firm. Mr. Doe settled the claim against him for an additional $500,000, but on a non-recourse basis: he assigned to Mr. Sanders all his rights against his homeowner's insurer, and Mr. Sanders agreed not to collect the judgment from any other source.

In August 2014, Mr. Sanders sent the insurer another demand letter under the Consumer Protection Law. When the insurer refused the demand, he filed an action in a Massachusetts state court. The insurer removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction.

Be Careful What You Plead For

Mr. Sanders's complaint against the insurer asserted multiple claims, including breach of contract, negligence and violation of the Consumer Protection Law. In support of those claims, the complaint documented Messrs. Sanders's and Doe's "efforts to obtain coverage under the Policy." But it also alleged, repeatedly and formulaically, that the insurer had breached its duties to Doe by

failing to defend and indemnify Doe despite the fact that liability was reasonably clear and the claims ... were ... covered under the Policy.

The complaint did not specify when the alleged failure to defend had occurred; it was only later that Mr. Sanders would contend that the duty to defend had been triggered by his original demand letter to Mr. Doe. It is also not clear what additional relief, if any, Mr. Sanders was seeking for the alleged breach of the duty to defend, since the complaint did not allege that Doe had incurred any defense costs.

Deliberately or not, the allegation added a new dimension to the case. When the insurer moved to dismiss, it did so on several grounds, the first of which was that it "had no duty to defend Doe, because there is no allegation that a lawsuit was ever filed."

The motion also asserted defenses to the claims for indemnification: it contended that the policy did not cover settlements to which the insurer had not agreed; that the underlying claim fell within the policy's professional services exclusion; and that Doe could not be liable, in his non-professional capacity, for what the insurer described as "negligent dating."

The Duty To Defend

The duty to defend was governed by the policy's Section II(E), which provided:

If a claim is made or a suit is brought against any insured for damages because of bodily injury ..., even if the claim or suit is false, we will:

  1. Pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which the insured is legally liable ...; and
  2. Provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice, even if the suit is groundless, false or fraudulent. We may investigate and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate.

According to the insurer, the meaning of this language depends on the omission of the word "claim" from the phrase, "even if the suit is groundless." On that reading, the phrase limits the language that comes before it ("we will ... [p]rovide a defense") to situations in which a suit has been filed. In response, Mr. Sanders focused on the language preceding the final phrase: "If a claim is made or a suit is brought ... we will ... [p]rovide a defense ... ." He argued that the "plain meaning" of that sentence was that a duty to defend could arise "from a claim alone."

The district court found for the insurer, but its decision was based on what is arguably a grammatical error. That is, the court treated subpart "b" of Section II(E) as a complete sentence, the meaning of which was not affected by the language preceding it:

The sentence dealing with provision of a defense refers only to suits, not claims. ... The Policy does not state that Defendants will provide counsel if a claim is made, or that it must settle claims that are made.

Even worse for Mr. Sanders, the court went on to find that it could dispose of the rest of the case on the basis of its ruling on the duty to defend:

The duty to indemnify is narrower in scope than the duty to defend. 'Thus, [if] an insurer has no duty to defend ..., it necessarily follows that the insurer does not have a duty to indemnify.' ...

Because ... the Defendant[] had no duty to defend or indemnify Doe, there was no duty to settle any claims against him.

The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss, and Mr. Sanders appealed.

In The Court of Appeals

The First Circuit opened its analysis of this dispute by asserting:

The precise scope of an insurer's duty to defend is defined by the insurance policy itself, to which we apply familiar rules of contract interpretation.

That certainly has been the approach taken in other cases. E.g., Post v. St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., 691 F.3d 500 (3rd Cir. 2012) (where policy stated insurer would "have the ... duty to defend any protected person against a claim or suit," duty attached before suit, when the policyholder received a letter accusing him of legal malpractice); Mahan v. American Standard Ins. Co., 862 N.E.2d 669 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (no duty to defend, where policy required insurer to "defend any suit or settle any claim for damages," and no suit had been filed).

In the course of affirming the district court's decision, however, the First Circuit did not engage in exegesis of the language of Section II(E). In particular, it did not attempt to show that Mr. Sanders's interpretation (based on the words, "If a claim is made or a suit is brought ... we will ... [p]rovide a defense ...") was so unreasonable that it could not even support an argument based on ambiguity. Instead, the court briefly rejected the plaintiff's argument that language in other parts of the policy demonstrated a duty to defend both "suits" and "claims." The opinion then quickly moved on to the much narrower question of whether Mr. Sanders's original demand under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law might qualify as a "suit" under Mr. Doe's policy.

That issue arose, because the court was bound to apply Massachusetts law, and, in that state, there are some circumstances in which notice of a claim can be the "functional equivalent of a suit." In Hazen Paper Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 555 N.E.2d 576 (Mass. 1990), an insurer had promised only "to defend any suit against the insured," and the policyholder, without being sued, received a letter from the federal Environmental Protection Agency, providing notice that it was a "Potentially Responsible Party" ("PRP") under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq. ("CERCLA"). The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the CERCLA notice was close enough to the complaint in a "suit" to trigger the insurer's duty to defend, because failure to respond to the letter would permit the EPA to conduct an administrative action unilaterally, and any review of the outcome would be limited to the record of that action. In other words, the policyholder had "no practical choice other than to respond actively to the letter."

In Sanders, the court distinguished Hazen Paper, on the ground that a demand under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law resembles a "conventional demand letter based on a personal injury claim" more closely than it does a PRP notice under CERCLA. (Because the opinion in Sanders was written by Judge Selya, who is equally committed to clarifying the law and to helping attorneys pass the verbal SATs, the decision stated that a "Chapter 93A demand letter is simply not a fair congener to the CERCLA letter.") The court explained:

Doe's underlying liability could not have been affected by the Chapter 93A letter — and his potential exposure to multiple damages ... would only come to fruition if a court established that underlying liability.

Tell Us What You Really Think

The court didn't stop there, and the balance of its analysis more clearly expressed the court's impatience with the underlying coverage claim—which it described as "a series of imaginative questions regarding the coverage available under a standard form homeowner's insurance policy." Further distinguishing Hazen Paper, it cited allegations in the coverage suit, to the effect that Doe's liability arose out of his personal conduct—an assertion that was necessary to avoid the professional services exclusion in the homeowner's policy. But Mr. Sanders's first letter to Mr. Doe—the letter that allegedly triggered the insurer's duty to defend him—was delivered under the Consumer Protection Law, which deals with "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade." Thus, the complaint against the insurer actually undercut any assertion that Mr. Doe would have paid double or treble damages for failing to respond to the demand letter he received.

Moreover, as in the district court, these conclusions about the duty to defend were also deemed fatal to the plaintiff's "gallimaufry of other theories of liability." Where there is no duty to defend, the Court of Appeals explained, it is "pellucid" that there is no duty to indemnify. Because all but one of Mr. Sanders's common law claims were based on the insurer's failure to defend or indemnify, the Court of Appeals found that all of those claims had been correctly dismissed. The remaining claim, alleging bad faith failure to settle, was also found to be unavailing, because an insurer "has no duty to settle absent a duty either to defend or to indemnify."

A Perfect Storm

In Sanders, the court vigorously rejected the suggestion that the plaintiff's demand letter might constitute a "suit," but it had little or no response to the much simpler contention that the language of the policy imposed a duty in connection with a "claim." Thus, notwithstanding the court's discussion of "the general rule that there is no duty to defend before the filing of a suit," and the narrowness of what it called the "Hazen Papers exception" to that rule, it is by no means clear that the case would have turned out as it did, if the plaintiff had had a stronger case for coverage.

Furthermore, it is possible that the scope of Hazen Papers would never have come up at all, had Mr. Sanders drafted his complaint more carefully and avoided the issue of the duty to defend.

Thus, while Sanders creates a strong precedent, it should also stand as a warning. Unless the insurer expects to have a good reason to participate in claims before they mature into litigation, policy language should unambiguously provide that the duty to defend begins with the filing of a suit.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions