Solomon Like Decision: No Duty to Defend – Potential Duty to Indemnify

Concurrent Cause Doctrine Does Not Apply When all Causes are Excluded

You’re reading from the free part of Excellence in Claims Handling. You should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the button below.

Post 5119

Death by Drug Overdose is Excluded

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/geQtybUJ and at https://lnkd.in/g_WNfMCZ, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.

Southern Insurance Company Of Virginia v. Justin D. Mitchell, et al., No. 3:24-cv-00198, United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division (October 10, 2024) Southern Insurance Company of Virginia sought a declaratory judgment regarding its duty to defend William Mitchell in a wrongful death case pending in California state court.

KEY POINTS

1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings, which was granted in part and denied in part.
2. Duty to Defend: The court found that the Plaintiff has no duty to defend William Mitchell in the California case due to a specific exclusion in the insurance policy.
3. Duty to Indemnify: The court could not determine at this stage whether the Plaintiff had a duty to indemnify William Mitchell, as this depends on facts determined by the trier of fact.

LEGAL STANDARDS AND ARGUMENTS

The standard for evaluating a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

The Defendants argued that the California case (for which Plaintiff seeks defense and indemnity) asserts theories of liability that show cause of injury not entirely arising out of the controlled substances that killed the plaintiff in the California case, invoking the concurrent cause doctrine.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

California Case Allegations

The court found that all theories of liability in the California case are anchored in the decedent’s drug overdose, and no other act created a substantial part from a risk covered by the policy.

Under Tennessee law, the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are distinct. The duty to defend is a question of law that can be decided at the summary judgment stage. On other hand, the duty to defend is triggered only after a fact finder determines the true facts and these facts are within a policy’s coverage.

An insurer’s duty to defend is separate and distinct from the insurer’s obligation to pay claims under the policy. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. An insurer may not properly refuse to defend an action against its insured unless it is plain from the face of the complaint that the allegations fail to state facts that bring the case within or potentially within the policy’s coverage.

The Court can find no duty to defend if it is plain from the face of the complaint and the attachments thereto that the allegations fail to state facts that bring the case within or potentially within the policy’s coverage.

The concurrent cause doctrine looks to whether coverage should apply when the independent causes – one addressed by an exclusion and the other not – caused the damages or injury and will allow for coverage if the nonexcluded act was a substantial causal factor.

The claims against William Mitchell in the California case are couched in terms of different liability theories – negligence, duty to warn, and violation of the California Drug Dealer Liability Act – but each theory of liability is anchored in the decedent’s drug overdose.

Exclusion Clause

The court analyzed the specific exclusion in the insurance policy, which excludes coverage for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use, sale, manufacture, delivery, transfer, or possession of controlled substances.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in that it has no duty to defend William Mitchell against the claims in the California lawsuit.

However, because the duty to indemnify is based on facts determined by the trier of fact and not merely the facts alleged in the complaint – as is the case of the duty to defend – the Court could not conclude at whether Plaintiff has a duty to indemnify William Mitchell relating to the California case. Therefore, the motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied as to the issue of the duty to indemnify.

ZALMA OPINION

The concurrent cause doctrine, created in the courts of the state of California allows that if one cause of loss is excluded and another cause of loss is not excluded, the loss must be covered and defense provided to the insured. In this case there were multiple causes of the injury to the California plaintiff but all of those causes related to the excluded cause, the drug overdose. The USDC in Tennessee provided a Solomon like decision denying defense but leaving open the potential for Indemnity.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.