Court Opinion

ID: 9734059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:24:12.472595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:45.333185
License: Public Domain

Barney, C.J.
(concurring). I concur in the result reached by the main opinion in this case. It seems plain that the right of the insurer, on the facts of this case, to raise the issue of re-litigating the factual questions determining coverage is compromised by its own actions. Its refusal to defend was expressed early in the development of the matter and essentially ended its participation in the controversy. No attempt was made for any agreement, such as by a reservation of rights, by which the matter could be carried forward at least to the *222point of the appearance in the case of the definitive factual issue suggesting a dispute as to coverage.
The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. Town of South Burlington v. American Fidelity Co., 125 Vt. 348, 350, 215 A.2d 508 (1965). When the company so swiftly abandoned its contractual obligation against, at best, an ambiguous analysis of the exclusionary availability, it left the insured to go forward. Admittedly, where there is an inconsistency in defenses, at some point, the insurance company must take steps to protect its contractual indemnification duty. Even so, the existence of the contract may, even in such a case, leave remaining a duty to reimburse for legal costs. See The Effect of Collateral Estoppel on the Assertion of Coverage Defenses, 1969 Colum. L. Rev. 1459, 1469.
This being so, and agreeing that collateral estoppel has limits based on adversity of interests, I cannot agree that the costs of litigation themselves and alone can supply the adversity that bars estoppel. This interest would rather appear to be fully embraced by the duty to defend.
I am authorized to say that Justice Shangraw joins in this concurrence.