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.