(Article from Insurance Law Alert, June 2019)
For more information, please visit the Insurance Law Alert Resource Center.
The Fifth Circuit ruled that two insurers are obligated to defend a policyholder in a civil rights suit arising out of coerced confessions and fabricated evidence, notwithstanding that the arrests and convictions occurred before the relevant policies incepted. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Mitchell, 925 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2019).
Three men spent a collective 83 years in prison for a crime they did not commit. One died in prison, while the other two died shortly after their exoneration and release. Their estates filed a civil rights lawsuit against the County. Travelers and Scottsdale sought a declaration that they had no duty to defend the suit. A Mississippi district court granted the County’s summary judgment motion, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
The Fifth Circuit ruled that injuries suffered by the decedents between 2005 and 2011 (while incarcerated and during the operative policy periods) triggered a duty to defend even though the wrongful causal acts (i.e., arrest and conviction) occurred decades earlier. The Travelers policy covered “injury or damage that . . . happens while this agreement is in effect.” The court reasoned that this language establishes a temporal requirement for injury only, not the causal event. The requirement was met, the court explained, because the civil rights suit alleges that the decedents suffered numerous incidents of physical and mental harm between 2005 and 2011.
The Fifth Circuit also held that a duty to defend was triggered under the Scottsdale policies, which covered “occurrences,” defined as “an event . . . which results in personal injury, bodily injury or property damage sustained, during the policy period.” The court deemed this language ambiguous as to whether it requires the “occurrence” or the bodily injury to take place during the policy period. Construing this ambiguity in favor of coverage, the court concluded that allegations of injuries during the policy periods trigger a duty to defend.
Importantly, the court noted that neither insurer’s defense obligation was triggered by the ongoing false imprisonment alone. In this respect, the court emphasized that it was not applying a “continuous trigger” or “multiple trigger” theory. Rather, the court explained, the policies were triggered because the underlying complaint alleged “bodily injuries during the policy periods that were distinct from the convictions themselves.”