Where Policy Contains no Duty to Defend, Reasonableness of I

Where Policy Contains no Duty to Defend, Reasonableness of Insurer's Decision to Withhold Consent to Settlement Judged from Insurer's Perspective | Wiley Rein LLP


To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
In answering a certified question from the Ninth Circuit, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that, where the policy contains no duty to defend, the objective reasonableness of an insurer’s decision to withhold consent to settlement is judged from the perspective of the insurer.
The insured, a publicly traded higher-education service provider, had coverage under a directors and officers (D&O) liability policy. A class action was filed against the company after public allegations arose that it had backdated stock options for corporate executives. The insured settled the claims while an appeal was pending before the Ninth Circuit. Coverage litigation ensued after the carrier refused to consent to the settlement.

Related Keywords

Arizona , United States , , Arizona Supreme Court , National Union Fire Ins , Apollo Education Group Inc , Ninth Circuit , Education Group , Union Fire , Defense Costs , அரிசோனா , ஒன்றுபட்டது மாநிலங்களில் , அரிசோனா உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் , தேசிய தொழிற்சங்கம் தீ இன்ஸ் , அப்பல்லோ கல்வி குழு இன்க் , ஒன்பதாவது சுற்று , கல்வி குழு , தொழிற்சங்கம் தீ , பாதுகாப்பு செலவுகள் ,

© 2025 Vimarsana