The Court said that the primary carrier could not assert the defense of unclean hands against the excess insurer in response to the excess carrier's equitable subrogation claim arising out of a judgment in excess of the primary policy limits because the jury found that the primary carrier had breached its stowers duty in May 2009 and again in September 2009, and therefore on those dates it became liable for all damages arising out of the negligent refusal to settle, so no action by the excess insurer was responsible for the loss since the excess carrier did not receive notice of the claim until 2010.
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login