US Fire Ins. Co. v. HAYDEN BONDED STORAGE

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing an issue of whether a Coblentz agreement may be enforced when there is no duty to defend but deciding that the issue was moot because the insurer did not breach its duty to indemnify
• explaining that “the duty to indemnify is narrower” than the duty to defend and is based on the actual merits of the claims against the insured, instead of the allegations in the complaint
• “It is clear that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify.”
• “It is clear that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify. . . . Because the duty to defend is so broad and so important to an insured, its existence is determined early on based on only the allegations of the complaint.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).