NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0715n.06
No. 20

- 5306

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT OUTDOOR VENTURE CORPORATION, J.C. EGNEW, and L. RAY MONCRIEF, Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO., et al, Defendants

- Appellees

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

BEFORE: DAUGHTREY, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Outdoor Venture Corporation ( OVC ), J.C. Egnew, and L. Ray Moncrief appeal a district court judgment denying their request s that defendants Grange Mutual Casualty Company and Scottsdale Indemnity Company reimburse them for the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the plaintiffs in defending them selves in underlying lawsuits. Because we conclude that the terms of the relevant insurance policies do not require such reimbursement of fees related to the hiring by the plain tiffs of independent counsel , w e affirm the judgment of the district court

.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Although this appeal now involves only three plaintiffs and two defendants, the action, as originally filed, included additional parties. In one of its opinions in th e course of this litigation, the district court appropriately identified those parties and expertly summarized the relevant factsNo. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 2

- of the present law suit. We thus see no reason to offer an additional summary of those facts and instead adopt the following district court statement of the background of the litigation :

The plaintiffs in this matter are three corporations and two individuals who were officers of the corporations. The three corporations are Stearns Manufacturing and its successor Outdoor Venture Corporation (together, “OVC”) and Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation. The two individual plaintiffs are J.C. Egnew and L. Ray Moncrief. During at least the relevant time, Egnew was the president of OVC. Moncrief was a director of OVC and an officer of Kentucky Highlands. The root of this dispute is three lawsuits filed against various of the plaintiffs by a company called LEEP, Inc. and one of LEEP’s insiders, Roger Blanken. LEEP alleged that it entered into “joint venture negotiations” with OVC. During the negotiations, Egnew signed on OVC’s behalf a non

- disclosure and non

circumvention agreement (the “ NDA”) which prevented OVC from contacting LEEP’s lenders or customers. Eventually, LEEP and OVC signed a letter of intent which “contemplated the formation of a new company to manufacture, in Kentucky, steel insulated building panels.” The companies were unable to reach an agreement, however, and negotiations ceased in August 2012. At the time, LEEP owed more than $7 million to Fortress Credit Corporation and was in default under the terms of the parties’ financing agreement. After joint venture negotia tions between LEEP and OVC ceased, Kentucky Highlands purchased Fortress’s rights under the financing agreement. Kentucky Highlands then repossessed LEEP’s assets and sold the assets to plaintiff Stearns Manufacturing, which is a subsidiary of OVC. Stear ns Manufacturing no longer exists; OVC now owns Stearns’ assets and liab i lities. With the three lawsuits underlying this action, LEEP and Blanken asserted that Kentucky Highlands wrongfully repossessed their assets. The first lawsuit was brought by LEEP in Jefferson Circuit Court against Kentucky Highlands, OVC, Egnew, and Moncrief (the “LEEP lawsuit [ ” ] ). With this lawsuit, LEEP alleged that the insureds had devised a scheme to “force LEEP out of business and to take over LEEP’s business by virtue of obt aining LEEP’s confidential information and then purchasing the Fortress note.” LEEP alleged that, after buying the note, the insureds gave notice of default to LEEP and took possession of LEEP’s facility and its assets and “took over LEEP’s business and c ontacted LEEP’s customers, all in an effort to destroy LEEP and to take over LEEP’s business through unlawful means.” LEEP sought $30 million in damages. The second lawsuit was brought by Blanken, who sued Kentucky Highlands and OVC in this Court. See Blanken, et al. v. Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation, et al. , No. 6:13

- 47

- DLB (E.D. Ky. filed April 22, 2013) (the “Blanken Kentucky action”). With this action, Blanken asserted that he

— not LEEP

— ownedNo. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 3

- a major piece of equipment repossessed by Kentucky Highlands called the Bradbury Roll Forming Machine and, thus, Kentucky Highlands had wrongfully repossessed it and sold it to OVC. The third lawsuit wa s also brought by Blanken, this time in state court in Pennsylvania (the “Blanken Pennsylvania action”) . In the Pennsylvania action, Blanken again sued Kentucky Highlands and OVC again asserting that the insureds wrongfully repossessed certain other inven tory that belonged to him, not to LEEP. That action was later removed to federal court in Pennsylvania, which transferred the case to this Court. See Blanken v. Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation, et al. , 6:14

- cv - 202

- DLB (E.D. Ky. Removed March 7, 2014). Kentucky Highlands, OVC, Egnew, and Moncrief were insured by at least one of the defendant insurers in this action: Grange Mutual Casualty Co., Scottsdale Indemnity Company, or Auto

- Owners/Owners Insurance Company (together, “Owners”). 1 These i nsurers asserted, however, that the claims brought by LEEP and Blanken against their insureds were not covered under the applicable insurance policies. Grange refused to defend their insureds at all. Owners offered to defend the insureds under a “reserva tion of rights” and appointed counsel to represent them. Scottsdale did the same, except with regard to Moncrief, who Scottsdale refused to defend at all. The insureds, however, retained their own counsel to represent them. With this action, they seek r eimbursement for the amounts they paid to defend themselves in the three lawsuits. They assert a breach of contract claim and seek a declaratory judgment that the insurance companies were obligated to defend them in the underlying actions. They also asse rt claims for statutory bad faith and common - law bad faith against Scottsdale and Grange. Each of the insurance company defendants assert a counterclaim in which they ask the Court to declare that they have no duty to reimburse their insureds for the cost s incurred in defending the underlying actions. In addition, Owners asks that Kentucky Highlands be required to reimburse it for the costs of defending it in the underlying actions. None of the insurers seek to recover any amounts paid by them to settle the underlying actions. The insureds move for partial summary judgment, asking for judgment in their favor that the insurance companies had a duty to defend them in the underlying actions. Each of the insurance companies also moves for summary judgment, asking the Court to find that they had no duty to defend the plaintiffs. Outdoor Venture Corp. v. Phila

. Indem. Ins. Co. , No. 6:16

- cv - 182

- KKC, 2018 WL 4656400, at
*1

– 2 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2018) (citations omitted)

.

1 The insureds’ claims against a fourth insurer, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, were voluntarily dismissed by the insureds.No. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 4

- After the plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss ed their claims against Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company , t he district court issued a lengthy opinion in which it concluded that summary judgment should be entered in favor of Grange and Owners because neither insurer had a contractual duty to defend the plaintiffs in the underlying actions

. Id. at * 4

– 1 1

. The district court further held that Scottsdale “complied with its duty to defend OVC and Egnew by appointing counsel to represent them in the LEEP and Blanken actions,” but “breached its duty to defend Moncrief in the LEEP and Blanken actions.” Id. at *19. Subsequently, the district court entered agreed orders that dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs again st Owners, all counterclaims by Owners against the plaintiffs, all claims by Moncrief against Scottsdale, and Scottsdale’s counterclaim against Moncrief. Outdoor Venture Corp. v. Phila

. Indem. Ins. Co. , No. 6:16

- cv - 182

- KKC, 2020 WL 891213 , at *1 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 24, 2020). Finally, the district court granted summary judgment to Grange and Scottsdale on the plaintiffs’ bad

- faith claims and dismissed any counterclaims by the insurers as moot. Id. at *2. Thus, the only issue s now remaining before us on appea l involve the plaintiffs’ claims that Grange
and Scottsdale are liable for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in obtaining independent counsel to defend them selves in the underlying lawsuits

. DISCUSSION Standard of Review We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Dodd v. Donahoe , 715 F.3d 151, 155 (6th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is appropriate only “ if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is e ntitled to judgment as a matter of law. ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material fact exists when, assuming the truth of the non

- moving party = s evidence and construing all inferences from that evidence inNo. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 5

- the light most favorable to the non

- moving party, there is sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to find for that party. See Ciminillo v. Streicher , 434 F.3d 461, 464 (6th Cir. 2006). Applicable Law
The district court exercised its diversity jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1332

. Consequently , on appeal we are obligated to apply the substantive law of the forum state

—here, the Commonwealth of Kentucky. See Erie R .R . Co. v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938); Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 930 F.3d 415, 422 (6th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). At issue in this appeal are the terms of insurance polic ies issued by Grange and Scottsdale in favor of OVC and its officers and directors , specific ally those terms setting forth the requirement s for the insurance companies to defend the plaintiffs against the allegations made by LEEP and Blanken. The Kentucky Supreme Court has held consistently that the construction of insurance contracts generally is considered a matter of law to be determined by the court , se e, e.g. , Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Kenway Contracting, Inc. , 240 S.W. 3 d 633, 638 (Ky. 2007) , and “ [t] he determination of whether a defense is required must be made at the outset of the litigatio n . ” James Graham Brown Found., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 814 S.W.2d 273, 279 (Ky. 1991).
We too have recognized explicitly that “[u]nder Kentucky law, a court should determine at the outset of litigation whether an insurance company has a duty to defend its insured by comparing the allegations in the underlying complaint with the terms of the insurance policy.” Westfield Ins. Co. v. Tech Dry, Inc. , 33 6 F.3d 503, 507 (6th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted)

. In making that determination, as well as in construing other contractual provisions, “ [t] he language of a written insurance policy is given its plain meaning, unless terms are o therwise defined therein.” Am. Mining Ins. Co. v. Peters Farms, LLC , 557 S. W .3d 293, 296 (Ky. 2018)No. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 6

- (citation omitted) . If the meaning of any contract term is ambiguous, however, th e ambiguity must be “interpreted against the drafter

- insurer.” Id. (cita tion omitted). Claims Against Grange
T he district court ruled that Grange had no duty to defend the plaintiffs against the allegations made by LEEP and Blanken. Specifically, the district court concluded that Grange was required to defend its insured s on ly from claims of “bodily injury,” “property damage,” or “personal and advertising injury.” Because , according to the district court, the lawsuits filed by LEEP and Blanken did not allege actions that fell within the definitional parameters of those contractual terms, no duty to defend ensued. Bodily Injury or Property Damage
Pursuant to the provisions of Grange’s policies, the company agreed: We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “bod ily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages. However, we will have no duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking damages for “ bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance does not apply. More specifically, Grange’s liability for , and duty to defend against , bodily injury and property damage c a me into play only if the alleged bodily injury or property damage was ca used by an “occurrence” in the coverage territory during the policy period. Because the policies define d an “occurrence” to mean “an accident,” coverage

— and thus a duty to defend

— was excluded in situations in which the bodily injury or property damage was “expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.”
B oth the LEEP complaint and the Blanken complaints allege d that actions undertaken by the plaintiffs resulted in machinery and other assets belonging to LEEP or to Blanken being taken without legal authorization. According to the Grange policies, such takings could be consideredNo. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 7

- “property damage,” which the policies define d as either “[p]hysical injury to tangible property” or “[l]oss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.” As the policies also provide d , however, f

or coverage to exist for such property damage , the physical injury or the loss of use
must not have been “expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured” and must not have arisen out of a failure by the insured ( or a person acting on the behalf of an insured ) “to perform a contract or agreement in accordance with its terms.” Although the Grange policies at issue in this appea l d id not define the term “accident” explicitly, Kentucky courts have taken numerous opportunities to offer guidance for construing such a contractual provision. In Fryman v. Pilot Life Insurance Co. , 704 S.W.2d 205, 206 (Ky. 1986), for example, the Kentu cky Supreme Court noted that because the word “accident , ” “as used in insurance policies, [has] never a cquired a technical meaning in law, [it] must be interpreted according to the usage of the average [person].” Thus, “[a]n accident is generally understo od as an unfortunate consequence which befalls an actor through

. . . inattention, carelessness or perhaps for no explicable reason at all.” Id. “Conversely, a consequence which is a result of plan, design or intent is commonly understood as not accident al.” Id

. More than a quarter of a century later, following years of attempting to divine the applicability of the concept of “accident” to different fact patterns, see, e.g. , Bituminous Cas. Corp. , 240 S.W.3d at 6 38

– 40 , and Cincinnati In s . Co. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. , 306 S.W.3d 69 (Ky. 2010), the Kentucky Supreme Court made clear in Martin/Elias Properties, LLC v. Acu i ty , 544 S.W.3d 639 , 642

– 43 (Ky. 2018), “that the legal analysis used to determine whether something
constitutes an accident for issues of [com mercial general liability] coverage is the doctrine of fortuity, which encompasses both intent and control.” (Emphasis in original.) Specifically , courts must determine :No. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 8

- 1) whether the insured intended the event to occur; and 2) whether the event was a “‘chance event’ beyond the control of the insured.” If the insured did not intend the event or result to occur, and the event or result that occurred was a chance event beyond the control of the insured, then [commercial general liability] co verage covering accidents will apply to the benefit of the insured. Id. at 643 (emphas i s in original) (footnote omitted). Arguing that their actions in repossessing a ssets belonging to LEEP and Blanken fell under the policies’ definitions of an “accident , ” the plaintiffs point to a section heading in the Bituminous Casualty opinion that states, “Accident includes intentional acts that cause unexpected or unintended results from the standpoint of the insured.” Bituminous Cas. Corp. , 240 S.W.3d at
638. They thus insist that, although they did intend to repossess the LEEP and Blanken assets, they did not intend to interfere with any “legitimate and senior rights” of LEEP and Blanken. As a result, they maintain that the actual interference with what were alleged to be superior rights
must be considered an act beyond their cont rol. Such an argument puts too fine a point on an interpretation of the holding in Martin/Elias Properties

. In essence, what the plaintiffs are arguing is that they intended to take possession of the assets of LEEP and Blanken, but only if such repossess ion w as not improper, or in other words, did not result in a denial of insurance coverage

. Such a formulation of the plaintiffs’ actions turns the concepts of accident and fortuity on their heads. Indeed , the plaintiffs intended the exact damage that occ urred

— the seizure of the assets of LEEP and Blanken. T he decision to seize the
assets , as well as the method of doing so, w as completely within the plaintiffs’ control and thus
cannot be considered accidental

. T he Grange policies also explicitly excluded from coverage any damage to property that was not physically injured but which arose out of a failure of the insured “to perform a contract or agreement in accordance with its terms.” In its second amended complaint in Jefferson Circui tNo. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 9

- Court, LEEP alleged that Egnew , as president of OVC, signed a non

- disclosure and non

circumvention agreement with LEEP that “pre cluded OVC, its agents and representatives from contacting any of LEEP’s creditors or lenders or customers or suppliers.” A cc ording to LEEP , OVC and Egnew breached that agreement “by using confidential and proprietary information provided, including LEEP’s lender negotiations and non

- public lender agreements for a lucrative settlement of debt

. . . .” LEEP’s allegation regard ing the plaintiffs’ failure to abide by the terms of the non

disclosure and non

- circumvention agreement brough t the plaintiffs’ actions squarely within yet

an other explicit exclusion to coverage for property damage under the Grange policies. Because Grang e thus had no duty to defend the plaintiffs in the underlying actions alleging property damage, Grange also has no responsibility for now reimburs ing the plaintiffs for attorneys’ fees
and costs associated with retaining independent counsel. Personal and Advertising Injury Under the provisions of the commercial general liability policy Grange had with the plaintiffs, the insurance company also agreed: We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “personal and advertising injury” to which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages. However, we will have no duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking damages f or “personal and advertising injury” to which this insurance does not apply. In pertinent part, th e policy defined “personal and advertising injury ” as injury arising out
of t he “ wrongful entry into

. . . premises that a person occupies” or “[o]ral or wr itten publication, in any manner, of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person’s or organization’s goods, products, or services.” The policy include d specific exclusion s from coverage, however, for any such injury “c aused by or at the direction of the insured with theNo. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 10

- knowledge that the act would violate the rights of another and would inflict ‘personal and advertising injury’” or any such injury “arising out of oral or written publication of material, if done by or a t the direction of the insured with knowledge of its falsity.” The plaintiffs argue on appeal that the district court could not properly determine Grange’s duty to defend them against LEEP’s 2 claims of “personal and advertising injury” merely by examinat ion of the allegations in the complaint in the underlying action

. In putting forth that argument, the plaintiffs assert that, at the pleading stage of the litigation, it is impossible to establish whether they knowingly violate d the rights of another

— a prerequisite to invocation of the exclusion provision of the policy. Rather, the plaintiffs contend that such information can be ascertained only through information obtained pursuant to discovery or by a finder of fact at trial. As we have noted already , however, Kentucky law calls upon courts to determine an insurer’s duty to defend at the outset of litigation by reference to the allegations in the underlying complaint

. Westfield Ins. Co. , 336 F.3d at 507. Here, the allegations of “personal and advert ising injury” in LEEP’s complaint ma d e clear that the actions undertaken by the plaintiffs fall outside the coverage provisions of Grange’s policies because of the plaintiffs’ alleged knowledge of the consequences of those actions

. Specifically, LEEP ’s se cond amended complaint against OVC, Egnew, Moncrief, Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation, and others alleged, in pertinent part : 93. All Defendants were specifically instructed not to contact either Fortress or the landlord, and all Defendants agree d to keep the information provided by LEEP confidential and to make no contact with either Fortress or the landlord. 94. From on or about early 2012 through December 26, 2012, the Defendants conspired, planned, organized, and schemed, to force LEEP out of business and to take over LEEP’s business by virtue of obtaining LEEP’s confidential information and then purchasing the Fortress note.

2 Blanken did not allege “personal and advertising injury” in either of his underlying complaints.No. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 11

- 95. Nordstrom[, LEEP’s president,] communicated to Defendants his private negotiations with Fortress, and they used th at confidential information to approach Fortress to obtain an assignment of the Note for only $750,000 and then give notice of default to LEEP[,] demand over $7 million dollars to be paid immediately, take possession of [a] former LEEP facility without any legal foreclosure action and wrongfully repossess all LEEP assets. Defendants substantially profited from the confidence it gained through LEEP. 96. On or about December 26, 2012 and continuing thereafter, Defendant, KHI, being assisted by other Defenda nts, then wrongfully entered the landlord’s premises and took manufactured LEEPCore TM structural insulated panels and removed the Bradbury Roll Forming lines and related support equipment and removed other equipment and supplies belonging to LEEP and others

. 97. KHI in concert with other Defendants wrongfully hired away the LEEP key employees Nordstrom had previously identified in confidential disclosures and took over LEEP’s business and contacted LEEP’s customers, all in an effort to destroy LEEP and to t ake over LEEP’s business through unlawful means. 98. Defendant, KHI, in concert with other Defendants wrongfully locked LEEP out of its Somerset fabrication building in an attempt to further destroy LEEP’s business. All actions of Defendants in furtherance of the scheme to destroy LEEP and use confidential information to take LEEP’s business were unlawful and all were performed by and through unlawful means.

. . . 159. Sotera is a defense contractor which has entered a contract with LEEP regard ing the manufacturing and construction of man camps for use of the United States Armed Forces. S ä lzer is a Germany company which has entered into a contract with LEEP. 160. The Defendant Egnew slandered LEEP to Sotera and S ä lzer by disparaging LEEP’s business. Such statements clearly allege that the actions of the plaintiffs in this case now on appeal were taken with full knowledge of the fact that they would violate the rights of others, that the plaintiffs gained entry into a premises only as a result of violating the terms of a confidentiality agreement, and that representations made by Egnew d isparaged an “organization ’ s goods, products, or services.” The district court thus did not err in ruling that Grange had no duty to defend the plaint iffs on LEEP’s claims of personal and advertising injury. Consequently, Grange also bears no liability for reimbursing the plaintiffs for the costs they incurred in employing independent counsel for their defense.No. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 12

- Claims Against Scottsdale In a final ap pellate issue, plaintiffs OVC and Egnew contend that , even though Scottsdale appointed counsel to defend the m in the lawsuits filed by LEEP and Blanken, the insurance
company now should reimburse the m for the costs of employing their o wn independent counsel. According to the plaintiffs, the attorneys provided by Scottsdale to defend them might have operated under a conflict of interest because those attorneys allegedly also owed a duty to the insurance company to minimize any liability fo r the insurer

. D espite the plaintiffs’ claim that counsel provided by Scottsdale might consider their primary duty to be to the insurance company rather than to the plaintiffs themselves, S cottsdale appointed one law firm to represent the plaintiffs in th e underlying lawsuits and retained a n entirely separate firm to represent the insurer ’s interests. T he Kentucky Bar Association has said, more than once, that “ [w]hen an Insurer provides the defense to an Insured, the attorney represents the Insured but n ot the Insurer.” Ky. Bar Ass’n Ethics Op. KBA E

- 410 (1999). 3
Moreover , the plaintiffs ’ appellate brief claims to identify “examples of how counsel appointed by Scottsdale could manipulate the proof

. . . in a way that would have a real impact on the coverage determination

. ” But before the district court, the plaintiffs admitted that they “are certainly not suggesting that appointed counsel did anything wrong in these cases[.]” So the plaintiffs essentially argue that Scottsdale’s reservation of righ ts alone created the prospect of a conflict of interest, entitling them to select their own counsel at the expense of Scottsdale. Of

course , some jurisdictions hold that “ a reservation of rights issued on certain bases creates a

3 To be sure, Kentucky courts are not bound by the bar association’s ethics opinions. See, e.g. , United States ex rel. U.S. Att orneys for the E. and W. Dist. of Ky. v. Ky. Bar Ass’n , 439 S.W.3d 136, 141 (Ky. 2014). At the same time, the Kentucky Supreme Co urt has cited bar association opinions as persuasive authority. See Hiatt v. Clark , 194 S.W.3d 324, 328 (Ky. 2006); Shoney’s, Inc. v. Lewis , 875 S.W.2d 514, 516 (Ky. 1994).No. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 13

- conflict of interest such that the Insured is entitled to ‘independent counsel’ paid for by the Insurer.” Ky. Bar Ass’n Ethics Op. KBA E

- 410 (1999). But that “stance is based on the notion that the attorney has as clients both the Insured and the Insurer, a view to which Kentucky does not adhere.” Id. Further , the plaintiffs admit that the y “did not explicitly

. . . reject the defense offered by their insurance carriers” prior to hiring their own counsel. E ven in jurisdictions that require appointment of independent counsel af ter an insurer’s reservation of rights, the insured generally must reject the insurer’s appointed counsel before it hires its own attorney. See, e.g. , Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Stevens Forestry Serv., Inc. , 335 F.3d 353, 356 n.3 (5th Cir. 2003) (apply ing Louisiana law) ; see also Douglas R. Richmond, Independent Counsel in Insurance , 48 San Diego
L

. Rev. 857, 874 (2011).
Even more , under the terms of the Scottsdale policy , the plaintiffs had to seek the written consent of the insurer before incurring any additional expenses : The Insureds agree not to

. . . incur any Costs, Charges and Expenses or otherwise assume any contractual obligation or admit any liabilit y with respect to any Claim without the prior written consent of the Insurer , such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The Insurer shall not be liable for any settlement, Costs, Charges and Expenses , assumed obligation or admission to which it has not consented. There is no e vidence that plaintiffs in this case ever made such a request. At least one district court has stated that “the right to independent counsel when an insurance company defends under a reservation is a novel question of state law ” in Kentucky. Twin City Fi re Ins. Co. v. Chewning , No. 5:18

- CV

- 124

- TBR , 2019 WL 2147282, at *8 (W.D. Ky. May 14, 2019). And two other federal trial courts also have grappled with the issue. Outdoor Venture Corp. , 20 18 WL 4656400, at *18

– 19 ; Auto

- Owners Ins. Co. v. Egnew , 152 F. S upp. 3d
868 , 879 (E.D. Ky. 2016). We feel confident, however, that in the circumstances of this particularNo. 20

- 5306 , Outdoor Venture Corp., et al. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., et al.

- 14

- case , Kentucky law does not require reimbursement for the counsel plaintiffs selected

. OVC and Egnew not only failed to identify any injury that they suffered as a result of Scottsdale providing them with legal counsel, they also failed to take the steps necessary to justify the actions for which they now seek reimbursement. T he district court thus did not err in granting summary judg ment to Scottsdale on the claim that the insurer was required to pay the cost of independent counsel retained by OVC and Egnew. CONCLUSION After paying premiums for insurance coverage that included a duty on the part of the insurance companies to defend t he insureds from certain claims seeking monetary damages, the plaintiffs suddenly found themselves either denied the benefits of that coverage altogether or worried that the defense offered by the insurance company would not have the best interests of the insured s at heart. The district court did not err , however, in concluding that the claims against the plaintiffs for “bodily injury or property damage” and for “personal and advertising injury” by LEEP and Blanken fell within exclusions to coverage in the Grange policies. Because Grange thus had no duty to defend those claims, it was not liable for the costs incurred by the plaintiffs in retaining their own counsel. Additionally, Scottsdale did provide OVC and Egnew with legal representation

—

representati on that the plaintiffs failed to reject prior to hiring their own counsel

. The district court thus also did not err in denying OVC and Egnew reimbursement for the fees they incurred in hiring independent counsel.
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court

.