Hugh A. Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

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 “was required to of- fer a defense in the underlying action unless it was certain that there was no coverage for the damages sought” where there was an un- resolved split amongst courts as to whether the underlying theory for damages was viable
• “Following a bench trial, we review legal con- clusions de novo and findings of fact for clear error.”
• observing that “all doubts as to whether a duty to defend exists in a particular case must be resolved against the insurer and in favor of the insured” and holding that the insurer had a duty to defend where there was “uncertainty in the law at the time.”
• affirming district court’s holding that cost of replacing a defectively- constructed balcony was covered under standard CGL policy when it was necessary to remove the balcony to repair property damage to the plaintiff’s garage
• affirming district court’s holding that cost of replacing a defectively- constructed balcony was covered under standard CGL policy when 13 it was necessary to remove the balcony to repair property damage to the plaintiff’s garage
• “Property damage occurs when the damage happens, not when the damage is discovered or discoverable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).