Fifth Circuit: Indemnity Possible Even Where No Defense Owed
Time 2 Minute Read

A federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday that the absence of a duty to defend does not foreclose the potential for indemnity coverage under primary and umbrella liability policies. The decision in Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. et al. v. DP Engineering LLC, stems from a March 31, 2013, incident where an industrial crane collapsed at a nuclear generating facility near Russellville, Arkansas, causing significant damage and injuries, including one death.

Focusing on the coverage issues, the court acknowledged that the duty to defend is typically broader than the duty to indemnify, and assessed the carrier's defense obligation under an "eight corners" analysis. Based on its review of the policies and the allegations as alleged in the underlying complaint, the court concluded that all of the allegations fall within the policies' "professional services" exclusion, thus barring any defense obligation. In contrast, the court explained that the carriers' duties to indemnify would be based on the facts as ascertained in the underlying lawsuit. As such, with one exception, as noted in the decision, the court ruled that the carriers' indemnity obligations could not be determined until final adjudication of the underlying lawsuit, thus holding open the potential for coverage despite the absence of any duty to defend.

The decision in DP Engineering is an important reminder for policyholders that coverage may still exist even after a court rules that the carrier need not defend the claim. Often, policyholders will place too much emphasis on the concept that an insurer's duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and, that consequently, a determination of no defense owed necessarily means that no indemnity is owed, either. As the Fifth Circuit's decision illustrates, however, that is not always the case. Policyholders, therefore, should be careful not to prematurely abandon a claim for indemnification simply because there appears to be no duty to defend under the language of the policy and the allegations asserted in the complaint. Consultation with experience coverage counsel can help avoid such abandonments and help secure coverage when it is rightfully due under the policy.

  • Partner

    Mike is a Legal 500 and Chambers USA-ranked lawyer with more than 25 years of experience litigating insurance disputes and advising clients on insurance coverage matters.

    Mike Levine is a partner in the firm’s Washington, DC ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 6 Minute Read

The decision of when to sue insurance companies, especially excess insurers, can be difficult, especially in disputes involving multiple claims, long timelines, and conflicting coverage positions between insurers. A recent federal court in Delaware, General Cable Corp. v. Scottsdale Indemnity Co., No, 1:24-CV-00797-TMH, 2025 WL 2576384, (D. Del. Sept. 5, 2025) underscores the timing risks in pursuing recovery in and out of litigation. In a word of warning to Delaware policyholders, the court dismissed a lawsuit against a manufacturer’s directors and officers excess liability insurers because its claims were either not ripe for adjudication or untimely filed.

Time 2 Minute Read

On July 7, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Apple Inc. v. NLRB (Case No. 24-60242) handed Apple a victory, declining to enforce the NLRB’s ruling that Apple had violated the National Labor Relations Act by unlawfully confiscating union literature left in an employee breakroom. 

Time 2 Minute Read

On December 11, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a rare en banc decision vacated the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) order approving Nasdaq’s board diversity rules (Rules 5605(f) and Rule 5606).

Time 3 Minute Read

The National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) empowers the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) to “take such affirmative action including reinstatement of employees with or without backpay, as will effectuate the policies of this Act.” 29 U.S.C. § 160(c). For much of the Board’s history, that has generally resulted in Board Orders that involve some combination of notice posting, backpay, and reinstatement.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page