National Indem. Co. v. St. Paul Ins. Companies
| Decision Date | 13 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 18291-PR,18291-PR |
| Citation | 150 Ariz. 458,724 P.2d 544 |
| Parties | NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The ST. PAUL INSURANCE COMPANIES, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Renaud, Cook, Videan, Geiger & Drury by Robert M. Geiger, Phoenix, for plaintiff-appellant.
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, Edward G. Hochuli, Donald L. Myles, Jr., Phoenix, for defendant-appellee.
National Indemnity Company brought an action against the defendant St. Paul Insurance Companies to compel St. Paul to contribute to the cost of defense borne by National in defending their mutual insured on claims covered by both insurers. The trial court entered judgment in favor of St. Paul. National appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. National Indemnity Company vs. The St. Paul Insurance Companies, 150 Ariz. 492, 724 P.2d 578 (App.1985). We granted St. Paul's petition for review to resolve the conflict in decisions on this subject between the divisions of our Court of Appeals.
The facts are not in dispute. In February 1980 Long's Portable Stalls, Inc. leased portable stalls for use at a horse show. In separate incidents during the exhibition, two horses were electrocuted. Two lawsuits were filed by the horse's owners against Long. Both National and St. Paul provided insurance coverage for these incidents. Under the policies issued by National and St. Paul, each was obligated to undertake the defense of Long. National defended Long in both actions; St. Paul refused to participate in the defense. Subsequently, St. Paul agreed to pay one-half of the settlement arranged by National, but it refused to contribute to the defense costs incurred by National in the defense of the claims.
In Arizona Joint Underwriting Plan v. Glacier General Assurance Company, 129 Ariz. 351, 631 P.2d 133 (App.1981), Division Two of the Court of Appeals held that, absent an agreement, where more than one insurance company has the duty to defend an insured, the insurance company actually defending the insured has no right to claim contribution from the other insurance company for the cost of defending the insured. Id. at 354, 631 P.2d at 137. In this case, Division One of the Court of Appeals rejects the position of Division Two and holds that the insurance company assuming the defense of their mutual insured can claim contribution from the other insurer.
The authorities are divided on the issue whether one insurance company can compel another insurance company to contribute to the cost of defense of an insured where each insurer has the duty to defend that insured. We have considered the authorities relied on by both divisions, and we believe that the authorities relied on by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharon Steel Corp. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
...costs of defense from other insurers who were equally obligated to defend yet failed to do so. See National Indem. Co. v. St. Paul Ins. Cos., 150 Ariz. 458, 724 P.2d 544, 545 (1986) ("Under the principle of equitable subrogation, the insurer which has performed the duty to provide a defense......
-
Burgraff v. Menard, Inc.
...a "breach of a duty to defend precludes application of an equitable right to contribution." See also Nat'l Indem. Co. v. St. Paul Ins. Companies, 150 Ariz. 458, 724 P.2d 544, 545 (1986) ("When an insurer has a duty to defend the insured, there should be no reward to the insurer for breachin......
-
Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Usf Ins. Co.
...(Alaska 1970); Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 57 Cal.2d 27, 366 P.2d 455, 17 Cal.Rptr. 12 (1961))); Nat'l Indem. Co. v. St. Paul Ins. Cos., 150 Ariz. 458, 459, 724 P.2d 544 (1986) ("When an insurer has a duty to defend the insured, there should be no reward to the insurer for breaching......
-
Nucor Corp. v. Emp'rs Ins. Co. of Wausau
...Beeson, 132 Ariz. 503, 506, 647 P.2d 634, 637 (App.1982) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nat'l Indem. Co. v. St. Paul Ins. Cos., 150 Ariz. 458, 459, 724 P.2d 544, 545 (1986) (holding that an insurer must contribute to the defense costs borne by another insurer in defending thei......
-
Apportioning Coverage Responsibility of Consecutive Insurers When the Actual Occurrence of Injury Cannot Be Ascertained: Who Has to Contribute in a Settlement? - Rob S. Register
...States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 285 F.2d 579, 582 (10th Cir. 1960). 114. National Indem. Co. v. St. Paul Ins. Cos., 724 P.2d 544, 545 (Ariz. 1986). Under the principle of equitable subrogation, the insurer which has performed the duty to provide a defense to its insured s......