ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
No. 22-4054, 2024 WL 945246 (6th Cir. Mar. 5, 2024)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the federal district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Discover Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Discover) and Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich) and against ACE American Insurance Company (ACE), remanding the case to the district court. ACE, Discover, and Zurich were primary insurers of Safelite Group, Inc. (Safelite), a windshield repair company. The issue in the case was whether ACE was entitled to equitable contribution against Discover and Zurich for defense costs incurred solely by ACE.

In August 2015, Safelite was sued by other windshield repair companies for Lanham Act violations, claiming Safelite's false advertising harmed them. After Safelite satisfied its deductible, ACE started paying Safelite's defense costs. Safelite did not notify Discover or Zurich about the lawsuit. Discover and Zurich did not learn about it until August 2019. By that time, ACE had paid nearly $5 million in defense costs. In October 2019, ACE informed Discover and Zurich that it intended to seek equitable contribution for Safelite's defense costs. The two insurers agreed to equally share future defense costs with ACE, but they refused to reimburse ACE for pre-tender defense costs incurred before the date they received notice of the case.

ACE commenced its lawsuit against the insurers, seeking equitable contribution for all past and future defense costs that it paid or will pay on Safelite's behalf. The parties agreed that the underlying lawsuit triggered a duty to defend and that the pre-tender defense costs were reasonable and necessary. The district court, however, concluded that Discover and Zurich had no duty to contribute because of the untimely notice and that a prejudice inquiry was unnecessary.

On appeal, the appellate court vacated the district court's judgment holding that the insurers shared a defense obligation, and instructing the district court to conduct a prejudice analysis to determine whether the untimely notice constituted a material breach of the Discover and Zurich insurance policies. For that reason, it remanded the case to the district court for a prejudice determination.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.