Legal Opinion
Australia Unlimited, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided December 15, 2008No. 61113-5-IPublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCox, J.
¶1 An insurer’s duty to defend arises “if the insurance policy conceivably covers the allegations in the complaint, whereas the duty to indemnify exists only if the policy actually covers the insured’s liability.”1 Here, the complaint filed by Crocs, Inc., in the federal lawsuit in Colorado against Australia Unlimited (AU) alleges trade dress violations that are conceivably covered by the umbrella policy issued by The Hartford Casualty Insurance Company. Thus, Hartford had a duty to defend AU in that action. However, Hartford had no duty to defend AU either in the International Trade…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- John H. Harland Company, Cross-Appellant v. Clarke Checks, Inc., Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- State Farm General Insurance v. EmersonWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Texas Instruments Incorporated v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, Lsi Logic Corporation, and Vlsi Technology, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union Ins.Washington Supreme Court · 2001
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Commercial Union InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2000
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Grange Insurance v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Ki Sin Kim v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- Mass. Bay Ins. Co. v. Walflor Indus., Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2019
- Black v. National Merit Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2010
- National Surety Corp. v. Immunex Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2011
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.