Associated Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the insurer is obligated to conduct the putative insured’s defense if the insurer has knowledge of true but unpleaded facts, which, when taken together with the complaint’s allegations, indicate that the claim is within or potentially within the policy’s coverage”
• holding that “the insurer is obligated to conduct the putative insured's defense if the insurer has knowledge of true but unpleaded facts, which, when taken together with the complaint's allegations, indicate that the claim is within or potentially within the policy's coverage”
• although-Washington law might have properly governed insurance contract interpretation, court applied Illinois law because litigating parties had assumed that Illinois law was controlling
• insurer knew about true but unpleaded facts creating the potential for coverage because it was defending another party in the underlying lawsuit
• “[I]f the complaint contains allegations which if true would exclude coverage under the policy, the insurer has no obligation to defend.”
• driver was either an agent or an independent contractor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).