Beckwith Machinery Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
638 F. Supp. 1179 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurer that assumes the defense of its insured without a timely reservation of rights is estopped from later denying coverage and withdrawing its defense, especially when the insured has detrimentally relied on the insurer's actions.
Facts:
- Travelers Indemnity Company provided Beckwith Machinery Company with a comprehensive general liability insurance policy that included a duty to defend against suits alleging property damage.
- In 1973, Beckwith sold and recommended various Caterpillar earthmoving equipment to Trumbull Corporation for a large construction project in Florida.
- Beginning in April 1975, the equipment supplied by Beckwith repeatedly broke down due to engine and transmission problems, hampering the progress of Trumbull's project.
- On March 17, 1976, Beckwith notified its insurance broker, who in turn informed Travelers, of the possibility of a claim by Trumbull.
- On September 27, 1976, counsel for Trumbull formally notified Beckwith of its claim that the equipment was defective and had caused damages exceeding $3 million.
- After Travelers assumed and then later withdrew its defense, Beckwith settled the underlying lawsuit with Trumbull by paying $100,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Trumbull Corporation sued Beckwith Machinery Company and Caterpillar Tractor Company in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (a state trial court).
- Travelers assumed the defense of Beckwith for all claims except those for punitive damages.
- After thirteen months, Travelers denied all coverage and withdrew its defense of Beckwith.
- Beckwith's privately retained counsel took over the entire defense of the Trumbull lawsuit.
- Beckwith Machinery Company sued Travelers Indemnity Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania for breach of contract.
- The district court previously dismissed Beckwith's count seeking punitive damages against Travelers for bad faith.
- Both Beckwith and Travelers filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which are now before the court for a decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an insurer that assumes the defense of its insured for thirteen months without a reservation of rights estopped from subsequently denying coverage and withdrawing its defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Cohill, Chief Judge
Yes, an insurer that assumes the defense of its insured without a reservation of rights is estopped from later denying coverage. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and arises whenever allegations against the insured state a claim potentially within the policy's scope. Here, the Trumbull complaint contained claims of property damage potentially covered by the policy, triggering Travelers' duty to defend. By assuming Beckwith's defense for thirteen months without reserving its right to contest coverage on the compensatory damage claims, Travelers induced Beckwith to rely on it for indemnification. This detrimental reliance, which deprived Beckwith of the opportunity to control its own defense from the outset, estops Travelers from now denying coverage. An insurer wishing to defend a claim while preserving its right to contest coverage must do so under a timely reservation of rights or by seeking a declaratory judgment; Travelers did neither, and thus waived its coverage defenses.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the doctrine of estoppel in insurance law, establishing that an insurer's actions can waive its right to deny coverage. The decision serves as a significant warning to insurers, clarifying that they cannot undertake a defense and then unilaterally withdraw after a prolonged period without consequences. It solidifies the procedural mechanisms—a reservation of rights letter or a declaratory judgment action—that an insurer must use to preserve its coverage defenses while fulfilling its broad duty to defend. The ruling protects insured parties from being prejudiced by an insurer's indecision or change of position mid-litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Beckwith Machinery Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.