My good friend, Marc Mayerson, is like most policyholder lawyers: he thinks more coverage is always a good thing. But more coverage means more cost for the insurer, which means higher premiums for policyholders. If the insurance purchasers value the additional coverage, they may be willing to pay those premiums. But if the value is seen as less than the cost, purchasers won't want the extra coverage. For inherently intentional torts, like the alienation of affections at issue in Pins v. State Farm, many purchasers will believe that they are quite unlikely to behave in a manner that risks even an unmeritorious allegation of that tort. So the value of defense coverage for the tort will seem quite low. And including the defense coverage in the policy will require all purchasers to contribute to the cost of providing a defense to those who are correctly alleged to have committed the tort. Many purchasers, including me, will think that the cost exceeds the value and prefer not to purchase the coverage. Insurance markets indicate that insurers pretty universally think there is no demand in the market for such coverage. If Marc thinks they are wrong, he is welcome to try to exploit that niche by finding or organizing an insurer to sell such policies. Sometimes there is a market for defense coverage for intentional torts (see D&O insurance). But maybe not here. I don't think this is a close question, based on standard policy language, and most of the cases Marc cites agree. But if it were a closer question, courts considering it should give thought to whether the coverage they are being asked to find is coverage that insureds would have wanted to pay for, if they had been asked at the time they purchased the policy.

Create an account or login to post comments.