Opinion ID: 1185362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Obligation to Defend

Text: Counsel for defendants argues that Phoenix, by virtue of having the primary coverage, also has the obligation to defend all suits such as the one here involved; and that Phoenix cannot escape this obligation to defend and pass such obligation on to Farmers which has only excess coverage. Although the policies are not in the record, except for a copy of a small portion of the policy of Farmers, we can assume counsel for defendants is correct in saying Phoenix has the obligation to defend. We say this because it is not denied by appellant and because such is the usual situation in liability insurance policies. Insofar as appellant may have attempted to release Phoenix from its obligation to defend by use of the phrase including the defense of any action, nothing was accomplished. The phrase obviously has no legal effect or validity because Josie Lopez could never be a beneficiary under Phoenix's agreement to defend. Such agreement is to defend against her and not for her. Our finding is that the administratrix has not waived all causes of action against the defendants. However, before the issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and amount of damages are tried to a jury, the trial judge must first determine who is obligated to defend; and he must see that the company obligated has made reasonable and proper arrangements to furnish or pay for a bona fide and not a mere token defense. In the event this necessitates Phoenix being brought in as a party to the suit for the particular purpose of deciding preliminary questions pertaining to defendants' defense, that will have to be done. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.