insurer defense in Massachusetts

2025Where an insurer and its insured disagree about whether there is a duty to defend, the insurer may provide a defense under a reservation of rights, file a declaratory judgment action to resolve whether it owes a duty to defend or indemnify, move to stay the underlying action in the meantime, and withdraw from the defense “if it obtains a declaration that it owes no duty to the insured.” Metropolitan, 460 Mass. at 358–359.

2022“Even where the allegations in the complaint state or roughly sketch a claim covered by a liability policy,” the insurer will nonetheless have no duty to keep defending the claim if: (1) “there is ‘undisputed, readily knowable, and publicly available information’ in court records that demonstrates that the insurer has no duty to defend,” Metropolitan, supra, quoting Billings, 458 Mass. at 205 , or (2) “there is ‘an undisputed extrinsic fact that takes the case outside the coverage and that will not be litigated at the trial of the underlying action, id., quoting Billings at 200 n.8; accord Deu

1996Co., 407 Mass. 689, 695-97 (1990), prevents an insurer from holding the insured thereafter to strict performance of the policy requirements, and the insured may later recover from the insurer not only defense costs but also, in some instances, the cost of any settlement entered into by the insured in good faith.

1993Co., 407 Mass. 689, 695-697 [1990]), prevents an insurer from holding the insured thereafter to strict performance of the policy requirements, and the insured may later recover from the insurer not only defense costs but also, in some instances, the cost of any settlement entered into by the insured in good faith.

2015On appeal, we declined to adopt “a rebuttable presumption of prejudice in cases where the delay in notifying an insurer of a claim or possible claim is ‘extreme.’ ” Id. at 485 .

2015We explained that an insurer should not be permitted “to avoid liability on the basis of the possibility, rather than on proof of actual prejudice.” Id. at 486 .

2022“Even where the allegations in the complaint state or roughly sketch a claim covered by a liability policy,” the insurer will nonetheless have no duty to keep defending the claim if: (1) “there is ‘undisputed, readily knowable, and publicly available information’ in court records that demonstrates that the insurer has no duty to defend,” Metropolitan, supra, quoting Billings, 458 Mass. at 205 , or (2) “there is ‘an undisputed extrinsic fact that takes the case outside the coverage and that will not be litigated at the trial of the underlying action, id., quoting Billings at 200 n.8; accord Deu

2015Co., 58 Mass. App. Ct. 818, 820-823 (2003). 6 For extensive discussion of the operation and enforceability of an “other insurance” clause expressly purporting to relieve an insurer of its defense obligation if there is another insurer with a duty to defend, see Nautilus Ins.

2013Co., 402 Mass. 366, 372-373 (1988); Clegg v. Butler, 424 Mass. 413, 423-424 (1997).

2013Co., 402 Mass. 366, 372-373 (1988); Clegg v. Butler, 424 Mass. 413, 423-424 (1997).

1991We have previously ruled that a showing of actual prejudice is required where the insurer seeks to disclaim coverage based on the violation of a provision requiring: that the insured promptly notify the insurer of a claim, Johnson Controls, supra', that the insurer consent to a settlement affecting a claim, Maclnnis v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 403 Mass. 220, 223 (1988), or that the insured cooperate in the event of a lawsuit, Darcy v. Hartford Ins.

1980The single member’s findings, which were adopted by the board, amply support his determination that the insurer “was not prejudiced by the employee’s failure to give timely notice and to make timely claim.” See Channell’s Case, 337 Mass. 124, 127-128 (1958).