Case Briefs

In Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California, 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 838 (Cal. Ct. App. May 24, 2007), the insured was sued for intentionally battering the claimant and for negligently believing that he was acting in self-defense and acting unreasonably on that belief in battering the claimant. The insurer refused to defend its insured, claiming that there was no 'occurrence' because the attack could not be characterized as an accident. The insured then settled with the claimant, and assigned to the claimant his claims against the insurer for refusing to defend the insured. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the claimant's complaint, finding no duty to defend and no bad faith. The California court of appeal reversed. It found that the underlying complaint 'pled facts showing that a potential for coverage existed under the ' policy.' It explained that the complaint 'showed potentially covered conduct because it alleged plainly that [the insured] acted in self-defense. Therefore, it held that at the time the insured tendered the action for a defense, the insurer 'was clearly aware of facts that gave rise to potential liability under its policy triggering its duty to defend [the insured] … As a matter of law, [the insurer's] duty to defend was thus manifest at the outset.'