Opinion ID: 1956820
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliance, INA, Commercial Union

Text: Widener contends that summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of Reliance, INA and Commercial Union because of the existence of genuine issues of material fact. It is not disputed that the general liability policies issued by Reliance, INA and Commercial Union provided coverage for one or more of the Avins actions [6] and that the terms of these policies imposed upon the insurers a duty to defend in the underlying actions. Widener, however, asserts that the issues of fact pertain to whether: (1) the defense tendered was adequate; (2) entries of counsels' appearances were untimely; and (3) Widener refused the defense tendered. Widener makes these assertions in the face of its prior statements that: (1) it never timely notified the other carriers of certain of the Avins actions in question (appellant's brief at 32); and (2) had American Casualty informed Widener that it would not reimburse for the costs of defense, Widener would have allowed its other carriers to assume its defense (appellant's brief at 32). We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the three areas asserted by Widener to be in dispute. [7] The question remains, however, whether appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Appellees contend that the duty to defend is not triggered until the insured requests the carrier to defend it. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Gulf Insurance Co., 776 F.2d 1380 (7th Cir. 1985). As was already stated the fact that Widener never timely notified appellees of certain of the Avins actions is not disputed. Late notice, however, is not sufficient to relieve an insurer of its duty to defend when it is otherwise reasonably alerted of an action to which its duty would extend. [8] Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 335 Pa.Super. 410, 484 A.2d 768 (1984). In the present case, however, not only was Widener's notice to appellees untimely but Widener failed to request appellees to provide a defense and refused counsel that appellees nevertheless appointed. [9] Therefore, we find that judgment in favor of Commercial Union, INA, and Reliance was proper.