Duty to defend vs Duty to indemnify
From what I understand if the liability coverage is not present in the insurance contract and the insured is sued by third party, there is no duty to indemnify and thus no duty to defend? Would it be possible to have a scenario where there is duty to defend but not indemnify or duty to indemnify but not to defend? If yes, in what circumstances?
Comments
Yes that is right. For your second question, based on the syllabus there is no scenario where there is a duty to defend but no duty to indemnify. I am not sure if there have been other cases outside of the syllabus where there is a duty to defend but not indemnify
In Sansalone vs Wawanesa it seems as if there was a minority ruling that the action was intentional but injury was not as the defendant had an invalid belief of consent. The conclusions as that the insurer has a duty to defend but not idemnify.
My understanding is that if there is no possibility of indemnification there is no duty to defend. How can there be a duty to defend but not duty to indemnify in this case?
The conclusion and final ruling of this case is there is not a duty to defend. A minority decision just means that the judges were not unanimous in their decision. The rationale for the judges' decision is provided in the study kit.