recognizing duty to defend when claims against the insured are conceivably covered
How later courts described this case
- recognizing duty to defend when claims against the insured are conceivably covered
- duty to indemnify 4 “hinges on the insured’s actual liability to the claimant and actual coverage under the policy”
- documents extrinsic to the underlying complaint be used only to 22 trigger a duty to defend
- “the duty to defend requires an insurer to give the insured the benefit of the doubt when determining whether the insurance policy covers the allegations in the complaint” (emphasis added)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
C. Johnson, J.
(dissenting) — The duty to defend arises when a complaint against the insured, construed liberally, alleges facts which could, if proved, impose liability upon the insured within the policy’s coverage. Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751, 760 , 58 P.3d 276 (2002). In her complaint, Tina Alberts alleged that Robert Woo devised a scheme to humiliate her, ordered the boar tusks, placed them in her mouth when she was unconscious, took pictures, had them developed, and told Alberts that she had a trophy to take home.
¶74 By these facts, Alberts unambiguously alleges that her injuries were the consequence solely of Woo’s inten *72 tional conduct, none of which involves providing dental services. Even under the most liberal construction, the complaint’s allegations are not conceivably covered. I agree with and would simply adopt the well reasoned opinion by the Court of Appeals.
Madsen, J., concurs with C. Johnson, J.