Truck Insurance Exchange v. Unigard Insurance
Docket: No. 03-15079, 03-15119; D.C. No. CV-02-01882-LKK
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; February 17, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Truck Insurance Exchange appeals the district court's summary judgment favoring Unigard Insurance Company regarding their duty to defend joint insureds in a third-party action by Schrimsher. Truck asserts both it and Unigard had an obligation to defend the insureds and seeks equitable contribution from Unigard after solely defending them. California law mandates that an insurer must defend its insured whenever there are facts indicating potential liability under the policy, as established in Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co. Insurers must evaluate potential coverage based on both the complaint and known extrinsic facts at the time defense is tendered, per Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B. Unigard's policy required it to defend the insureds if a claim for damages from personal injury, including slander, defamation, or invasion of privacy, was made. However, the court found that the Schrimsher complaint lacked any allegations that could substantiate claims for slander, defamation, or invasion of privacy under common law or the California Constitution, following the precedent set in Barnett v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. Consequently, the district court's summary judgment was deemed appropriate, and the decision was affirmed. The disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited in court except as per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.