Opinion ID: 172861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was Murphy an insured under plaintiffs' policy?

Text: The insurance policy covers claims that were first made to an insured during the policy period. Thus, we must now determine whether Murphy was an insured under the definitions of the policy when he received the Tester Letter. As stated above, per the terms of the insurance policy, a Claim shall be deemed to have been first made at the time notice of the Claim is first received by any Insured. App. at 40. An Insured is defined as: Insured means: 1. the Named Insured and any Predecessor Firm; 2. any individual or professional corporation who is or becomes a partner, officer, director, stockholder, or employee of the Named Insured, but solely while acting within the scope of their duties on behalf of the Named Insured; 3. any individual or professional corporation who was a partner, officer, director, stockholder, or employee of the Named Insured or Predecessor Firm, but solely while acting within the scope of their duties on behalf of the Named Insured or Predecessor Firm; 4. any individual or professional corporation designated counsel or of counsel to the Named Insured, but solely while acting within the scope of their duties on behalf of the Named Insured for which a fee inured to the Named Insured; 5. the heirs, executors, administrators, and legal representatives of each Insured in the event of death, incapacity or bankruptcy, but solely with respect to the liability of each Insured as otherwise covered by this Policy. Id. (underlining emphasis added). Again, we find no ambiguity in the above-quoted language of the insurance policy. All the terms have ordinary, common meanings associated with them. The plain meaning of the applicable definitional subsection covers a very broad swath of individuals, and then narrows that swath. It begins with the phrase  any individual and is then limited by a requirement that the individual  was a partner, officer, director, stockholder, or employee of the named insured, which was Timothy H. Berry, P.C. Id. (emphasis added). It is undisputed that Murphy was a co-shareholder in Berry & Murphy, P.C. and was therefore an individual who was a partner of the named insured. The second limit on the insured definition is the language but solely while acting within the scope of their duties on behalf of the Named Insured. Id. This clause, when read in context with the rest of this definitional subsection, cannot mean that an individual is an insured only while acting on behalf of the named insured, but must mean that an individual is an insured only if the claim being made is related to that individual's duties on behalf of the named insured. Otherwise, no former employee of the named insured could ever be an insured. If insured were interpreted to mean that an individual was an insured only while acting within the scope of business of the named insured, it would be paradoxical to define insured to include former employeesany individual who was a partner, officer, director, stockholder, or employee of the Named Insured, Timothy H. Berry, P.C. Id. (emphasis added). In our opinion, the better view is that insured is defined to include an individual after he has left the law firm if the claim involves that individual's acts or omissions that occurred while at the law firm. [6] Here, that is the case, because Murphy withdrew from the Ciri Lawsuit almost simultaneously with leaving Berry & Murphy, P.C. We therefore conclude that notice of the claim was given to Murphy, an insured via the Tester Letter, before the policy period. [7] As a result, Carolina Casualty had no duty to defend or indemnify plaintiffs. Because Carolina Casualty had no legally cognizable duty to defend or indemnify a claim, plaintiffs' bad faith claim also cannot survive. Leprino v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 89 P.3d 487, 492 (Colo.Ct. App.2003). We affirm the judgment of the district court.