New York Law Review

Villa Charlotte Bronte, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 64 N.Y.2d 836 (1985): Insurer’s Duty to Defend Based on Policy Language and Potential for Indemnification

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Villa Charlotte Bronte, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 64 N.Y.2d 836 (1985)

An insurer has a duty to defend its insured if there is any possible factual or legal basis upon which the insurer might eventually be obligated to indemnify the insured under any provision of the insurance policy.

Summary

This case addresses an insurer’s duty to defend in a defamation action. Villa Charlotte Bronte, Inc. and its officers, Lederer and Abelman, were sued for defamation. Their insurer, Commercial Union, refused to defend them, citing a policy exclusion for defamatory statements made before the policy’s effective date. The New York Court of Appeals held that Commercial Union had a duty to defend Lederer because the underlying complaint alleged post-policy defamatory statements, and it was not established as a matter of law that no potential for indemnification existed under the policy. The insurer failed to prove that there was no possible factual or legal basis on which the insurer might eventually be obligated to indemnify him.

Facts

Villa Charlotte Bronte, Inc. (a co-op), Abelman (president), and Lederer (vice-president) were insured by Commercial Union against damages from defamatory statements made within the scope of their duties.

O’Rorke sued the plaintiffs for defamation due to statements made during a dispute.

Commercial Union refused to defend the plaintiffs, leading to a declaratory judgment action by the plaintiffs seeking to compel the insurer to defend them.

The insurance policy excluded coverage for “personal injury arising out of any publication or utterance if the first injurious publication or utterance of the same or similar material by or on behalf of the named insured was made prior to the effective date of this insurance.” The policy went into effect on March 1, 1980.

Procedural History

Special Term denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

The Appellate Division reversed, granting partial summary judgment to Villa Charlotte Bronte, Inc. and Abelman but dismissing Lederer’s claim.

The Appellate Division reasoned that Lederer was not entitled to relief because he made defamatory statements before the policy’s inception.

Lederer appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether Commercial Union Insurance Company had a duty to defend Lederer in the defamation action, given the policy exclusion for pre-policy defamatory statements and the allegations of post-policy defamatory statements made on behalf of the corporation.

Holding

Yes, because the underlying complaint in the defamation action alleged that Lederer made defamatory statements on behalf of the corporation after the policy’s inception date, and it was not established as a matter of law that there was no possible factual or legal basis on which the insurer might eventually be obligated to indemnify him under any provision contained in the policy.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order regarding Lederer. The court emphasized that the O’Rorke complaint alleged defamatory statements made by Lederer on behalf of the corporation *after* March 1, 1980.

The court stated that the insurer could only be excused from defending Lederer if it could establish, as a matter of law, that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which the insurer might eventually be obligated to indemnify him under any provision contained in the policy. Citing Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co., 64 NY2d 304 and Spoor-Lasher Co. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 39 NY2d 875, 876.

The court found that Commercial Union failed to meet this burden because several factual issues remained unresolved, including:

  • The making of the defamatory statements.
  • The dates when they were made.
  • Whether the declarant was acting on behalf of the corporation.
  • Whether the pre-policy statements were the same as or similar to those made after March 1, 1980.

The court reasoned that until these factual issues are resolved, it cannot be determined whether the policy exclusion applies to preclude coverage for Lederer.

The court implicitly held that ambiguous allegations in the underlying complaint regarding the timing and nature of defamatory statements should be resolved in favor of the insured when determining the duty to defend.

More ARTICLES