 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Makarka v. Great American Insurance Co.12/22/2000
of the case and found that because the policy did not provide coverage for the claims alleged against the insured, the insurer was correct in its assertion that it had no duty to defend the claim. We then extended our analysis to be certain that a reasonable insured would expect neither coverage nor a defense under the policy. Finding that a reasonable lay interpretation of the policy would not encompass coverage under the circumstances, we found no ambiguity, no coverage, and therefore no duty to defend.
As O'Neill established, where coverage turns solely on the interpretation of policy language that has never been reviewed by this court, that fact alone is not enough to create a possibility of coverage that required a defense. Given the level of scrutiny directed at an insurer's decision not to provide coverage, insurers who accurately interpret their policies and give their insureds timely notice of the reason why there is no coverage are not required to provide a defense merely because we have yet to interpret that particular policy language.
Here, Great American's denial letter assessed Makarka's claim for bodily injury and accurately explained that the injury occurred outside of the period covered under the Great American policy. Thus, the superior court correctly granted Great American summary judgment on the question of whether it had a duty to defend Callihan.
IV. CONCLUSION
The superior court's grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|