US Court of Appeals First Circuit CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellant v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee April 1, 2020 (EXCERPTS/SUMMARY by Junfola – 4/4/20)

ISSUES:

Duty to Defend

Duty to Investigate

Waiver and Estoppel

Claims for contribution and for alleged violations of Massachusetts General Laws, chapters 93A and 176D

Clarendon appeals district court’s entry of summary judgment against its claim that Philadelphia breached its contract with Lundgren Management Group, Inc. when Philadelphia declined to tender a defense to Lundgren.  Lundgren assigned these claims to Clarendon.  The court determined that because the property damage allegations were excluded by the prior policy period exclusion, the complaint did not give rise to a duty to defend.  Furthermore, Clarendon challenges the summary dismissal of its additional claims for contribution and violations of MA General Laws, chapters 93A and 176D, which the court concluded should also be dismissed because they were premised on the incorrect notion that Philadelphia had breached its duty to defend.  Affirmed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s