BROADCASTS.com

b'

A Video Explaining Duty to Defend and the Four Corners Rule 

https://zalma.com/blog

Some states apply a rule of interpretation of the duty to defend a  liability claim by limiting their review to the facts alleged in the  lawsuit and the wording of the insurance policy.  They refuse to consider any evidence extrinsic to the allegations of the  suit.  If any of the allegations are potentially covered by the policy, the  duty to defend is established. If none of the allegations in the  complaint is potentially covered by the policy, the insurer can  generally refuse to defend.  

\\u201cFour corners\\u201d refers to the parameters of the policy; there is a  variant test known as the \\u201ceight corners rule.\\u201d There is little  difference between the two; they both take into consideration the four  corners of the suit and the four corners of the policy.  Courts operating under the four corners or eight corners rule will not  consider extrinsic facts or the potential for a suit drafted out of  spite. The prudent insurer will, before making a decision, determine  what rule or test is applied in the jurisdiction where the loss  occurred.  The rationale behind the two rules is to require insurers to defend  their insureds against all covered claims regardless of merit. Allowing  an insurer to admit extrinsic evidence that contradicts a plaintiff\\u2019s  allegations to establish the applicability of a policy exclusion would  circumvent the very reason for the rules.52  Many jurisdictions have ruled that any doubt regarding the obligation to  defend is to be resolved in favor of the insured [Miller v. Elite Ins.  Co., 100 Cal. App. 3d 739 (1980)].  

Potentiality  

The insurer is not required to indemnify the insured if the potentiality  of an accidental cause never materializes, if the jury finds that the  insured intentionally caused the plaintiff\\u2019s injury, or if the insured  is convicted of the crime of battery. However, even though a policy  excludes liability arising from violations of law, there is the  potentiality that the jury would find there was no violation of law and  that the policy provided coverage. However, if the claims of negligence  against the insured were potentially covered under the policy the  insurer will have a duty to defend.  Determining whether insurance coverage exists requires analysis of the  claims asserted in the state court action. [ Elec. & Power Co. v.  Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 475 S.E.2d 264, 265-66 (Va. 1996);  Bohreer v. Erie Ins. Grp., 475 F. Supp. 2d 578, 584 (E.D. Va. 2007)]  noting that Virginia recognizes the "potentiality rule," wherein an  insurer\'s duty to defend is triggered if there is any possibility that a  judgment against the insured will be covered under the insurance  policy. The "eight corners rule," compares the four corners of the  insurance policy with the four corners of the underlying complaint to  determine whether coverage exists. [Erie Ins. Exch. v. State Farm Mut.  Auto. Ins. Co., 60 Va. Cir. 418 (Va. Cir. Ct. Dec. 16, 2002); AES Corp.  v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 725 S.E.2d 532, 535 (Va. 2012]