Nutmeg, Sí, Palmetto, No!: Travelers Wins Both Sides of Insurer-vs.-Insurer Dispute

by Carlton Fields


Picture of the University of Connecticut School of Law

Although large or protracted losses can implicate more than one liability policy, sometimes only one insurer steps up to provide a defense.  When that happens, the insurer can try any of several ways to recover its expenses from other carriers, including a declaratory judgment action, an action for equitable subrogation and a claim for contribution.  But the law in this area is not uniform, as two recent cases illustrate.

In Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of America v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 312 Conn. 714 (Aug. 5, 2014), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held, in a case of first impression, that Travelers had standing under state law to pursue a declaration of another insurer’s duty to defend under a policy that the insurer had issued to one of Travelers’s insureds.  In Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of America, No. 4:12-cv-03423-RBH, 2014 WL 3687338 (D.S.C. July 22, 2014), a federal court in South Carolina similarly found that Auto-Owners had standing to sue Travelers under the federal declaratory judgment act.  But the court went on to hold that Auto-Owners had no substantive right under South Carolina law to force Travelers to pay the cost of defending an insured.

Connecticut: The Case of the Leaky Law Library

The Connecticut case arose out of the work of Lombardo Brothers Mason Contractors, which performed masonry work for the library of the University of Connecticut Law School between 1994 and 1996.  The Huskies experienced “problems with water intrusion” over the next two decades, until, in 2008, the State of Connecticut sued the Lombardo Brothers and others to recover $18 million in repair costs.  Travelers insured the Lombardos, under a commercial general liability policy, from 1994 through 1998.  Netherlands issued umbrella and general liability policies for the period 2000 through 2006.  The policyholder notified its insurers about the potential claim in 2005.  Travelers agreed to participate in the defense; Netherlands (and other carriers) declined to do so.

In July 2009, Travelers filed a two-count complaint against Lombardo Brothers, Netherlands and two other insurers.  (One of the defendant insurers ultimately settled the claim.)  The first count sought a declaratory judgment that the insurers were obligated to pay their pro rata share of the Lombardos’ defense.  The second count sought reimbursement from the insurers for the defense costs Travelers had already incurred, under a theory of equitable subrogation.  After the complaint had been filed, Travelers voluntarily withdrew the equitable subrogation claim, because that claim required it to put the legal bills from the underlying suit into evidence, and Travelers could not do so without vitiating the attorney-client privilege in that case.  As soon as the subrogation claim was withdrawn, however, Netherlands moved to dismiss the one remaining count for lack of standing.  Because Travelers was not a party to the insurance contract Netherlands had issued to the Lombardos, Netherlands argued that Travelers had no right to seek to enforce that contract.

The issue was a matter of first impression in Connecticut, but, as the Supreme Court noted, the “vast majority” of jurisdictions permit courts to hear declaratory judgment actions “relating to the rights and obligations of two insurance companies as to the coverage of their respective policies.”  As compared with those other jurisdictions, the court also found that “[Connecticut’s] declaratory judgment statute is unusually liberal,” and that it is “broader in scope than … the statutes in most, if not all, other jurisdictions.”

In Connecticut, standing may be established by a showing either that the plaintiff is authorized to bring suit under the terms of the declaratory judgment statute, or that the plaintiff is “classically aggrieved.”  A party is classically aggrieved (i) if it can demonstrate “a specific, personal and legal interest” in the dispute, “as distinguished from a general interest, such as is the concern of all members of the community as a whole,” and (ii) if it can also establish “that this specific personal and legal interest has been specially and injuriously affected.”  The “specific, pesonal and legal interest” that satisfies this requirement must be one that could be the subject of a “specific cause of action”—such as breach of contract.  But the court held that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to demonstrate a capacity to assert the relevant cause of action at the time of the declaratory judgment suit.

Because these requirements were satisfied in the present case, the Supreme Court affirmed an award of declaratory judgment to Travelers.

South Carolina: The Case of the Horizontal Tower

Meanwhile, in South Carolina, persistent problems caused a group of owners of condominiums in something called the Hyperion Towers Horizontal Property Regime to bring suit against the Hyperion Towers Homeowners’ Association for alleged breaches of duty.  The Association had coverage under a CGL policy issued by Auto-Owners, for the priod from 1991 through 2000, and under a Non-Profit Management and Organization Liability policy, issued by Travelers, for the period from 2007 through 2010.  Auto-Owners is currently providing a defense in the underlying suit; Travelers is not.  Auto-Owners therefore brought a suit seeking both a declaratory judgment that Travelers has a duty to defend and contribution for the expenses it had incurred.

Travelers moved for summary judgment before the United States Distrcit Court for the District of South Carolina.  Apparently without making reference to the case that was still pending in Connecticut, Travelers argued that Auto-Owners lacked standing to seek a declaration of Travelers’s obligations under a policy to which Auto-Owners was a stranger.  Applying the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, the court found that the issue turned on whether “there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.”  The court held that these conditions were satisfied, and that Auto-Owners had standing to bring its claim.

The court nevertheless dismissed the case, because it went on to find, under the substantive law of South Carolina, that one insurer may not recover defense costs from another.  Citing Sloan Construction Co. v. Cent. Nat’l Life Ins. Co. of Omaha, 236 S.E.2d 818 (S.C. 1977), the court found that “the duty to defend is several[,] and the insurer is not entitled to divide the duty nor require contribution from another absent a specific contractual right.”  Thus, despite “a litany of cases from around the country which support granting equitable contribution in favor of one insurer against another for defense costs,” the court could not sustain Auto-Owners’s claim.  The reasoning underlying this policy is as follows (citations and internal quotation marks omitted):

[T]he insured was not damaged because it was afforded a defense.  Moreover, the insurer who defended was not damaged by [the other’s] refusal to defend since it was a stranger to the contract between the other insurer and its insured. … [T]he insurance company who defended was doing no more than it was obligated to do under its insurance contract.

Sloan involved a claim for contribution between two insurers who shared an identical risk, but the district court in Auto-Owners found that this reasoning “is equally applicable where the insurers insure different risks, and where a declaratory judgment … is sought.”

Image source: Daderot (Wikimeda)

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Carlton Fields | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Carlton Fields

Carlton Fields on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.