Opinion ID: 2550236
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Lexington Has a Duty to Defend

Text: The duty to defend may be broader than the duty to ultimately indemnify. [45] In assessing either of those duties, a court typically looks to the allegations of the complaint to decide whether the third party's action against the insured states a claim covered by the policy, thereby triggering the duty to defend. [46] The test is whether the underlying complaint, read as a whole, alleges a risk within the coverage of the policy. [47] In determining whether an insurer is bound to defend an action against an insured, we apply the following principles: (1) where there is some doubt as to whether the complaint against the insured alleges a risk insured against, that doubt should be resolved in favor of the insured, (2) any ambiguity in the pleadings should be resolved against the carrier, and (3) if even one count or theory alleged in the complaint lies within the policy coverage, the duty to defend arises. [48] Here, we conclude that the Lot or Batch Provision is ambiguous because it is susceptible to two reasonable and competing interpretationsone that limits coverage and one that expands coverage. Because the latter interpretation arguably applies in this case, ConAgra need not satisfy the Retained Limit for a Lot or Batch Occurrence$5 millionto trigger Lexington's duty to defend. Rather, consistent with the interpretation of the Lot or Batch Provision that expands coverage, ConAgra need only satisfy the Retained Limit for a General Liability Occurrence $3 million. ConAgra surpassed that threshold approximately three years ago. Consequently, Lexington's duty to defend was triggered as of the date that ConAgra's liabilities exceeded the $3 million Retained Limit for a General Liability Occurrence. [49] Whether or not there is ultimate coverage is for the Superior Court to determine, upon an expanded record, on remand.