HARTFORD INS. v. Merchants & Farmers Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the allegations in the complaint, “not the legal phraseology, determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured in the action.”
• finding no duty to defend but holding that determination on duty to indemnify was “premature”
• finding no duty to defend but holding that determination on duty to indemnify was “premature”
• noting that since it had not found a duty to defend based on the complaint’s allegations, the next step was to review other facts that may be proved by admissible evidence not alleged in the complaint that show a reasonable inference that the conduct fell under the policy
• no duty to defend because the alleged facts “flatly contradict the allegation of negligence, which was simply dropped into the complaint”
• “An insurer’s duty to pay a judgment is determined by analyzing the policy coverage in light of the facts revealed in the underlying action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).