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 & 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	N. Ins. Co. of New York 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 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Arkansas	Unfavorable	Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Morrowland 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. Super. Ct., 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. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co.,520 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2008), and 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 Prop. 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. duPont 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 Gen. Title Ins. Co., 801 A.2d 61 (D.C. 2002).
Florida	Unfavorable	Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Beaver, 466 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 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 (Haw. 2000); but see Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 383 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004); Weight v. USAA 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. Servs. 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. Emps. Mut. Cas. Co., 703 N.W.2d 395 (Iowa 2005); Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Attys. Process & Investigation Servs., 778 N.W.2d 218 (Iowa Ct. 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), and DiBeneditto v. Med. Protective Co., 3 F. App'x 483 (6th Cir. 2001), with Lenning v. Com. Union Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 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), and 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. App. Ct. 2002), and 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 475 (Mich. 1996); Matthew T. Szura & Co. v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 543 F. App'x 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. of Hartford 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, Inc. v. Allianz Ins. Co., 895 S.W.2d 205 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
Montana	Unfavorable	Revelation Indus., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 206 P.3d 919 (Mont. 2009); Landa v. Assurance 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 (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), aff'd, 557 F. App'x 807 (10th Cir. 2014); but see Sw. Steel Coil, Inc. v. Redwood Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 148 P.3d 806 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006).
New York	Favorable	QBE Ins. Corp. v. Adjo Contr. Corp., 121 A.D.3d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 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 & 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. 104, 162, 2009 WL 9508739 (Okla. Civ. App. May. 8, 2009); First Bank of Turley v. Fid. & Deposit Ins. Co.of Md., 928 P.2d 298 (Okla. 1996).
Oregon	Unfavorable	Ledford v. Gutoski, 877 P.2d 80 (Or. 1994); Isenhart v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Am., 377 P.2d 26 (Or. 1962).
Pennsylvania	Unclear	Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Com. Union Ins. Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006); Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 2 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2010); Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. v. Esposito, 280 F. Supp. 3d 666 (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 F. App'x 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., Div. of Ins. Servs., , 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. Inc., 216 S.W.3d 302 (Tenn. 2007); Forrest Const., Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 703 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2013); Clark v. Sputniks, LLC, 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 Ins. Co. v. Avalos, 610 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. 2020).
Utah	Unclear	Basic Rsch., LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co., 297 P.3d 578 (Utah 2013); but see Fire Ins. Exch. v. Est. of Therkelsen, 27 P.3d 555 (Utah 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. of W. Va. 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. of Wis. 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.

50 State Surveys

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

Date Posted

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

Contact Us

Quick Links

Northeast

Southeast

West Coast