Opinion ID: 220938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: travelers’s duty to defend

Text: Based on our above holding that Gerken is a subcontractor, Travelers has a duty to defend against the underlying Port Clinton suit. The standard governing when an insurer has a duty to defend the insured against suit has been clearly described by Ohio courts: An insurer's duty to defend is broader than and distinct from its duty to indemnify. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., [59 N.E.2d 199 (1945)], paragraph one of the syllabus; W. Lyman Case & Co. v. Natl. City Corp., [667 N.E.2d 978, 979 (1996)]. The scope of the allegations in the complaint against the insured determines whether an insurance company has a duty to defend the insured. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trainor, [294 N.E.2d 874 (1973)], paragraph two of the syllabus. The insurer must defend the insured in an action when the allegations state a claim that potentially or arguably falls within the liability insurance coverage. Willoughby Hills v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., [459 N.E.2d 555, 557 (1984)]. However, an insurer need not defend any action or claims within the complaint when all the claims are clearly and indisputably outside the contracted coverage. Preferred Risk Ins. Co. v. Gill, [507 N.E.2d 1118, 1123 (1987)]. Ohio Gov’t Risk Mgmt. Plan v. Harrison, 874 N.E.2d 1155, 1159-60 (Ohio 2007). Further, “the duty to defend need not arise solely from the allegations in the complaint but may arise at a point 15 No. 09-4449 Mosser Construction, Inc v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. subsequent to the filing of the complaint.” Willoughby Hills, 459 N.E.2d at 557. The complaint in the underlying Port Clinton suit alleges facts sufficient to implicate Travelers’ duty to defend against claims that the backfill produced and supplied by Gerken caused damage to the waste water treatment plant facilities.