Use of Extrinsic Evidence in Determining an Insurer’s Duty to Defend

Date Posted

Thursday, August 29, 2024
Download PDF

An insurer’s duty to defend is typically determined by the allegations of the complaint against the policyholder, regardless of the truthfulness or accuracy of such allegations. However, in some jurisdiction, courts will allow parties to rely upon information found outside of the com- plaint to determine whether a duty to defend is owed. This information is known as “extrinsic evidence.” Policyholders may seek to provide extrinsic evidence to establish a duty to defend, where the facts of the complaint are insufficient to trigger the obligation. Conversely, insurers may seek to introduce extrinsic evidence in order to negate any duty to defend. The jurisdictions vary as to whether extrinsic evidence is permitted. Some courts allow only a policyholder (but not an insurer)to rely upon extrinsic evidence. Other courts allow either party to use such information, while others do not permit the use of extrinsic evidence at all.

This survey is intended to examine the use of extrinsic evidence in determining the duty to defend across the 50 states.

The map on the following page identifies how each state has assessed the use of extrinsic evidence in duty to defend disputes. Dark blue signals that the state is beneficial to the policyholder, in that extrinsic evidence is allowed to establish coverage but not to negate coverage. Yellow alerts the policyholder to have caution; the state may allow both the insured and the insurer to use extrinsic evidence or the state’s position may be unclear. Red warns the policyholder that extrinsic evidence is not allowed to establish the duty to defend, or can only be used by an insurer to negate coverage.

 

Use of Extrinsic Evidence in Determining an Insurer’s Duty to Defend

Extrinsic evidence is allowed to establish coverage but not to negate coverage.
Extrinsic evidence may be allowed to both establish and negate coverage.
Extrinsic evidence is not allowed to establish the duty to defend, or can only be used by an insurer to negate coverage.
STATE POLICYHOLDER IMPACT RELEVANT AUTHORITY

Alabama

 Favorable Gunnin v. State Farm and Cas. Co., 508 F. Supp. 2d 998 (M.D. Ala. 2007); Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Godbee Med. Distribs., Inc.,733 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (M.D. Ala. 2010); Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 928 So. 2d 1006 (Ala. 2005).

Alaska

 Favorable Williams v. GEICO Cas. Co., 301 P.3d 1220 (Alaska2013); Afcan v. Mut. Fire, Marine & Inland Ins. Co., 595 P.2d 638 (Alaska 1979).

Arizona

 Unclear Northern Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 918 P.2d 1051 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995); U.S. Fid. & Guar. Corp. v. Advance Roofing & Supply Co., 788 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989); Long v. City of Glendale, 93 P.3d 519, 528 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).

Arkansas

 Unfavorable Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Morrow Land Valley Co., LLC, 411 S.W.3d 184 (Ark. 2012); Tri-State Ins. Co. v. B&L Prods., Inc., 964 S.W.2d 402 (Ark. Ct. App. 1998).

California

 Unfavorable Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court, 861 P.2d 1153 (Cal.1993); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. MV Transp., 115 P.3d 460 (Cal. 2005); Storek v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 504 F. Supp. 2d 803 (N.D. Cal. 2007), aff'd, 320 F. App'x 508 (9th Cir. 2009).

Colorado

 Unclear Compare Thompson v. Md. Cas. Co., 84 P.3d 496 (Colo. 2004) with Pompa v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.,520 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. Colo. 2008); Dish Network Corp. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., 989 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D. Colo. 2013), aff'd sub nom. Dish Network Corp. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 772 F.3d 856 (10th Cir. 2014).

Connecticut

 Unclear Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Litchfield Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 876 A.2d 1139 (Conn.2005); Misiti, LLC v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of America, 61 A.3d 485 (Conn., 2013).

Delaware

 Favorable Pac. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 956 A.2d 1246 (Del. 2008); Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Alexis I Du Pont Sch. Dist., 317 A.2d 101 (Del. 1974).

District of Columbia

 Unfavorable Navigators Ins. Co. v. Baylor & Jackson, PLLC, 888 F. Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C. 2012); Stevens v. United General Title Ins. Co., 801 A.2d 61 (D.C., 2002).

Florida

Unfavorable Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Beaver, 466 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. Fla. 2006); Colony Ins. Co. v. G & E Tires & Serv. Inc., 777 So.2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).

Georgia

 Unclear Compare Anderson v. S. Guar. Ins. Co. of Ga., 508 S.E.2d 726 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998), with Hoover v. Maxum Indem. Co., 730 S.E.2d 413 (Ga. 2012).

Hawaii

 Unclear Dairy Rd. Partners v. Island Ins. Co., 992 P.2d 93, 116 (Haw. 2000); but see Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 383 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. Haw. 2004); Weight v. USSA Cas. Ins. Co., 782 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (D. Haw. 2011).

Idaho

 Unfavorable Amco Ins. Co. v. Tri-Spur Inv. Co., 101 P.3d 226 (Idaho 2004); Hoyle v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 48 P.3d 1256 (Idaho 2002).

Illinois

 Unclear Pekin Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 930 N.E.2d 1011 (Ill. 2010); Am Econ. Ins. Co. v. Holabird & Root, 886 N.E.2d 1166 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008); Title Indus. Assurance Co., R.R.G. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 853 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2017).

Indiana

 Unclear Compare Transam Ins. Co. v. Kopko, 570 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind. 1991), with Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 842 N.E.2d 1279 (Ind. 2006); see also Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. N. Vernon Drop Forge, Inc., 917 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

Iowa

 Unclear Talen v. Emp'rs Mut. Cas. Co., 703 N.W.2d 395 (Iowa 2005); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Attys. Process & Investigation Servs., 778 N.W.2d 218 (Iowa App. 2009).

Kansas

 Favorable Miller v. Westport Ins. Corp., 200 P.3d 419 (Kan. 2009); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Vita Craft Corp., 911 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (D. Kan. 2012).

Kentucky

 Unclear Compare James Graham Brown Found., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 814 S.W.2d 273 (Ky. 1991); Dibenedetto v. Med. Protective Co., 3 F. App'x 483 (6th Cir. 2001); with Lenning v. Commer. Union Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. Ky. 2001).
STATE POLICYHOLDER IMPACT RELEVANT AUTHORITY

Louisiana

 Unfavorable Elliott v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 949 So.2d 1247 (La. 2007); Grimaldi Mech. L.L.C. v. Gray Ins. Co., 933 So. 2d 887 (La. Ct. App. 2006).

Maine

 Unfavorable York Ins. Group v. Lambert, 740 A.2d 984 (Me. 1999); Harlor v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 150 A.3d 793 (Me. 2016).

Maryland

 Favorable Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Cochran, 651 A.2d 859 (Md. 1995); Brohawn v. Transam. Ins. Co., 347 A.2d 842 (Md. 1975).

Massachusetts

 Unclear Compare Herbert A. Sullivan, Inc. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 788 N.E.2d 522 (Mass. 2003); Millipore Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 115 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 1997) with Farm Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Whelpley, 767 N.E.2d 1101 (Mass. 2002); Metro. Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Morrison, 951 N.E.2d 662 (Mass. 2011).

Michigan

 Favorable Am. Bumper & Mfg. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 550 N.W.2d 440 (Mich. 1996); Matthew T. Szura & Co. v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 543 Fed. Appx. 538 (6th Cir. 2013).

Minnesota

 Unclear Pedro Cos. v. Sentry Ins., 518 N.W.2d 49 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).

Mississippi

 Favorable MGM Resorts Miss., Inc. v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp., 58 F. Supp. 3d 697 (N.D. Miss. 2014); Auto Ins. Co. v. Lipscomb, 75 So. 3d 557 (Miss. 2011); Farmland Mut. Ins. Co. v. Scruggs, 886 So. 2d 714 (Miss. 2004).

Missouri

 Unclear Allen v. Cont'l W. Ins. Co., 436 S.W.3d 548 (Mo. 2014); Standard Artificial Limb v. Allianz Ins. Co., 895 S.W.2d 205 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Montana

 Unfavorable Revelations Indus., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 206 P.3d 919 (Mont. 2009); Landa v. Assur. Co. of Am., 307 P.3d 284 (Mont. 2013).

Nebraska

 Favorable Peterson v. Ohio Cas. Group, 724 N.W.2d 765 (Neb. 2006); Mortg. Exp., Inc. v. Tudor Ins. Co., 771 N.W.2d 137 (Neb. 2009).

Nevada

 Favorable Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 497 P.3d 625 (Nev. 2021).

New Hampshire

 Unclear Webster v. Acadia Ins. Co., 934 A.2d 567, 570 (N.H. 2007); Ross v. Home Ins. Co., 773 A.2d 654 (N.H. 2001).

New Jersey

 Unclear Abouzaid v. Mansard Gardens Assocs., LLC, 23 A.3d 338 (N.J. 2011); but see Flomerfelt v. Cardiello, 997 A.2d 991 (N.J. 2010).

New Mexico

 Unclear W. Heritage Bank v. Fed. Ins. Co., 938 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D.N.M. 2013); but see Sw. Steel Coil, Inc. v. Redwood Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 140 N.M. 720 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006).

New York

 Favorable QBE Ins. Corp. v. Adjo Contr. Corp., 121 A.D.3d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2014); Fitzpatrick v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 575 N.E.2d 90 (N.Y. 1991).

North Carolina

 Unfavorable Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buzz Off Insect Shield, L.L.C., 692 S.E.2d 605 (N.C. 2010); Erie Ins. Exch. v. Builders Mut. Ins. Co., 742 S.E.2d 803 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).

North Dakota

 Unfavorable Tibert v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 816 N.W.2d 31 (N.D. 2012); Forsman v. Blues, Brews and B.-B-Ques, Inc., 903 N.W.2d 524 (N.D. 2017).

Ohio

 Unclear Ward v. United Foundries, Inc., 951 N.E.2d 770 (Ohio 2011); Acuity v. Masters Pharm., Inc., 205 N.E.3d 460 (Ohio 2022); but see City of Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 459 N.E.2d 555 (Ohio 1984).
STATE POLICYHOLDER IMPACT RELEVANT AUTHORITY

Oklahoma

 Favorable Poteau Ford Mercury, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 06-1030, 2009 WL 9508739 (Okla. Civ. App. May. 8, 2009); First Bank of Turley v. Fid. & Deposit Ins. Co., 928 P.2d 298 (Okla. 1996).

Oregon

 Unfavorable Ledford v. Gutoski, 877 P.2d 80 (Or. 1994); Insenhart v. Gen. Cas. Co., 377 P.2d 26 (Or. 1962).

Pennsylvania

 Unclear Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006); Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Center, Inc., 2 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2010); Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. v. Esposito, 280 F. Supp. 3d 666, 670-71 (E.D. Pa. 2017).

Rhode Island

 Unfavorable Quality Concrete Corp. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 43 A.3d 16 (R.I. 2012); Med. Malpractice Joint Underwriting Ass’n of R.I. v. Charlesgate Nursing Ctr., L.P., 115 A.3d 998 (R.I. 2015).

South Carolina

 Unclear Jessco, Inc. v. Builders Mut. Ins. Co., 472 Fed. Appx. 225 (4th Cir. 2012); USAA Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clegg, 661 S.E.2d 791 (S.C. 2008) but see Town of Duncan v. State Budget & Control Bd., 482 S.E.2d 768 (S.C. 1997).

South Dakota

 Unclear State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Harbert, 741 N.W.2d 228 (S.D. 2007); but see Lowery Constr. & Concrete, LLC v. Owners Ins. Co., 901 N.W.2d 481 (S.D. 2017).

Tennessee

 Unfavorable Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Moore & Assocs., 216 S.W.3d 302 (Tenn. 2007); Forrest Const., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 703 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2013); Clark v. Sputniks, 368 S.W.3d 431 (Tenn. 2012).

Texas

 Unfavorable Pine Oak Builders, Inc. v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 279 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009); but see Loya Insurance Company v. Avalos, 610 S.W.3d 878 (Tex., 2020).

Utah

 Unclear Basic Research, LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co., 297 P.3d 578 (Ut. 2013); but see Fire Ins. Exch. v. Estate of Therkelsen, 27 P.3d 555 (Ut. 2001).

Vermont

 Favorable R.L. Vallee, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 431 F. Supp. 2d 428 (D. Vt. 2006); Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 19 F. Supp. 2d 193 (D. Vt. 1998).

Virginia

 Unfavorable The AES Corp. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 725 S.E.2d 532 (Va. 2012); Marks v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 791 F.3d 448 (4th Cir. 2015).

Washington

 Favorable Campbell v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 209 P.3d 859 (Wash. 2009); Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 58 P.3d 276 (Wash. 2002).

West Virginia

 Unclear Farmers & Mechs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cook, 557 S.E.2d 801 (W. Va. 2001); but see State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alpha Eng'g Servs., Inc., 542 S.E.2d 876 (W. Va. 2000).

Wisconsin

 Unclear Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Bradley Corp., 660 N.W.2d 666 (Wis. 2003); but see Olson v. Farrar, 809 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 2012).

Wyoming

 Unfavorable First Wyo. Bank, N.A. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 860 P.2d 1094 (Wyo. 1993); Reisig v. Union Ins. Co., 870 P.2d 1066 (Wyo. 1994).

Disclaimer: This survey is current as of 07/2024. This material is made available for general informational purposes only. The field of insurance law is ever-evolving, and courts may change their views at any time. Readers are advised to independently verify the information contained herein. This material is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice, nor is it intended to constitute a solicitation for the formation of an attorney-client relationship.

For more information or questions on Extrinsic Evidence, please contact us at coverage@sdvlaw.com.

Contact Us

Our clients span a broad range and include individuals, non-profit institutions, universities, hospitals, municipalities, utilities, and corporations. No matter who you are or where you’re located, SDV is the right choice for policyholders.

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.