Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Litchfield Mutual Fire Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an insurer must provide a defense “when it has actual knowledge of facts establishing a reasonable possibility of coverage”
• stating that, under Connecticut law, “[a]n insurer ... is not excused from its duty to defend merely because the underlying complaint does not specify the connection between the stated cause of action and the policy coverage”
• finding duty to defend under commercial policy where business invitee was bitten by dog that employee should have known was aggressive and violent under the circumstances
• requiring ʺthe insurer to provide a defense when it has actual knowledge of facts establishing a reasonable possibility of coverage,ʺ even if such facts lie outside the ʺfour corners of the complaintʺ (citation and quotation marks omitted)
• “It is the function of the court to construe the provisions of the contract of insurance.”
• absent fraud, the insurer must pay the insured the amount of settlement if the insurer breaches its duty to defend

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).