American Family Mutual Insurance v. W.H. McNaughton Builders, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• although insurer and insured had mutual interest in finding builder not liable for mold damage, insurer would be equally protected if damage were found to have occurred before policy’s inception
• “[A]n insurer may not justifiably refuse to defend its insured unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the complaint has failed to allege facts potentially within the insured’s policy coverage.”
• “[I]f, in the underlying suit, insurer-retained counsel would have the opportunity to shift facts in a way that takes the case outside the scope of policy coverage, then the insured is not required to defend the underlying suit with insurer-retained counsel.”
• “if, in the underlying suit, insurer-retained counsel would have the opportunity to shift facts in a way that takes the case outside the scope of policy coverage, then the insured is not required to defend the underlying suit with insurer-retained counsel”
• “[I]f, in the underlying suit, insurer-retained counsel would have the opportunity to shift facts in a way that takes the case outside the scope of policy coverage, then the insured is not required to defend the underlying suit with insurer-retained counsel.”
• “if, in the underlying suit, insurer-retained counsel would have the opportunity to shift facts in a way that takes the case outside the scope of policy coverage, then the insured is not required to defend the underlying suit with insurer-retained counsel”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).