Duty to defend and duty to indemnify
in Land.Cases
Does no duty to defend imply no duty to indemnify? Or/and vice versa?
For Sansalone v Wawanesa and Nichols v American Home Assurance, from my understanding is that there is no duty to defend because the incidents were not covered by the policy in the first place (BI caused intentionally not covered, fraud not covered). So does that imply there is no duty to indemnify either?
Comments
No duty to indemnify implies no duty to defend -> No duty to indemnify implies that the policy does not cover said incidents
Hi,
I'm a little confused about Nicols v American Home Assurance case: the solicitor was accused of fraud but later found out to be INNOCENT.
Why is there still no duty to defend even though the defendant was found innocent?
The Supreme Court ruled there was no duty to defend because what the solicitor was accused of (fraud) was not covered by the policy. The outcome of the trial was irrelevant. The concept here is that if there is no duty to indemnify (because fraud isn't covered by the professional liability policy) then there is no duty to defend.