Auto Europe, LLC v. Connecticut Indemnity Co.

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 potential for coverage existed at the time [insurer] refused to defend [insured]. The duty to defend was therefore clear’ and, accordingly, the district court properly awarded attorney’s fees”
• stating that “even if a jury rejected the ... plaintiffs’ precise theory deliberate misrepresentation, they would retain the possibility of recovery ...”
• explaining that “a narrow reading of the complaint’s factual allegations might preclude coverage, but the alleged cause of action is sufficiently broad that a modified version of the facts could be developed at trial to show liability.”
• no duty to defend “when the cause of action alleged as the basis for liability ... include[s] elements that would foreclose coverage”
• “Maine law . . . broadly extends the duty to defend to claims that could be developed either legally or factually at trial so as to fall within the policy's coverage”
• “a policy covering numerous related companies located in different states would be deemed a multiple risk policy that . . . would be viewed in a particular case as if a separate policy had been issued to cover each entity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).