Steadfast Insurance v. Caremark RX, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where there is no duty to defend, there can be no duty to indemnify
• holding that where there is no duty to defend, there can be no duty to indemnify
• finding that policy excluded coverage for intentional conduct and complaint alleged a “scheme to mislead -6- and defraud”
• concluding, in the context of a specific policy exclusion, that claims involving price fixing, kickbacks, and conspiracy to control a market allege intentional acts
• “[b]ecause we have concluded that [the insurer] owes no duty to defend [the insured] in the underlying actions, the doctrine of estoppel is inapplicable”
• no coverage under the “wrongful act” provision because facts in the complaint were based on an intentional, deceptive scheme

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).