preview

Turner Insurance Case Study

Decent Essays
1. Does the insurer have a duty to defend, and if so, on what grounds?
Yes, the insurer has a duty to defend the Turner's. The commercial general liability (CGL) policy obligates an insurer to defend an insured against any suit seeking damages because of bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury. (http://www.irmi.com)
2. If the insurer must defend, will the insurer need to indemnify? Why, or why not?
Yes, the insurer must indemnify, as the insurer has a duty to defend Mr. and Mrs. Turner's policy against the law suit by the Cavanaugh's. The thought behind indemnifying is an effort to put the defending party fiscally where they would have been before the occurrence happened. Consequently, the obligation to defend may
…show more content…
What is insurance and how does the duty to defend serve the larger purpose of insurance?
Insurance permits individuals and companies to protect themselves from loss or damages caused by an event that is not of their control. This guideline is the rule that an insurer's obligation to defend a guaranteed is more extensive than its obligation to reimburse. In addition, an insurer may owe an obligation to defend its protected against a claim in which no damages are granted, and any uncertainty in the matter of whether the facts support an obligation to defend. Normally duty to defend is in favor of the insured.
The Cavanaugh's brought a lawsuit against the property owners Mr. and Mrs. Turner stating that they are responsible for the lead poisoning of their 4 year old son. Jason became ill soon after moving in the apartment that the Turners rented to the Cavanaugh’s. Jason was taken to his pediatrician by his parents an after a battery of tests, it was revealed that Jason had large amounts of lead in his system. After testing the paint in the Cavanaugh's apartment it was verified that the paint was old and contained elevated amounts of
…show more content…
The language in the General Liability policy, issued to the Turner's is not sufficiently complete to say that lead is excluded as pollution, when it examines: injuries brought on by "release, dispersal, discharge or escape of pollutants. In (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Dantzler, September 12, 2014, Wright, and J.).The pollution exclusion in rental dwelling policy precluded coverage for injuries sustained by a tenant as a result of exposure to lead-based paint, Nebraska’s highest court ruled. The allegation that exposure to lead-based paint caused injury necessarily contained an implicit claim that the paint had separated from the original surface. This separation fell within the meaning of the terms “discharge,” “dispersal,” “spill,” “release,” and “escape” in the pollution exclusion, which unambiguously applied to bar coverage
Get Access