Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 60 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from First Bank of Turley v. Fidelity & Deposit Insurance Co. of Maryland.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | First Bank of Turley v. Fidelity & Deposit Insurance Co. of Maryland Anchor | green | “an insurer has a duty to defend an insured whenever it ascertains the presence of facts that give rise to the potential of liability under the policy.” | 20 |
| 2 | First Bank of Turley v. Fidelity & Deposit Insurance Co. of Maryland | green | “the insurer's defense duty is determined on the basis of information gleaned from the petition (and other pleadings), from the insured and from other sources available to the insurer at the time the defense is demanded (or tendered) rather than by the outcome of the third-party …” | 13 |
| 3 | Dodson v. St. Paul Insurance Co. | green | “policy exclusions are read seriatim; each exclusion eliminates coverage and operates independently against the general declaration of insurance coverage and all prior exclusions by specifying other occurrences not covered by the policy.” | 10 |
| 4 | First Bank of Turley v. Fidelity & Deposit Insurance Co. of Maryland | green | “the duty to defend is separate from, and broader than, the duty to indemnify.” | 8 |
| 5 | Dodson v. St. Paul Insurance Co. | green | “in case of doubt, exclusions exempting certain specified risks are construed strictly against the insurer.” | 5 |
| 6 | Utica Mutual Insurance v. Voyles | green | “oklahoma does not recognize the four-corners rule followed by some courts. a court must look beyond the language of the complaint to determine whether a duty to defend exists.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.