Assurance Company of America v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, 2:13-cv-02191-GMN-CWH

Background

Three insurers (Assurance Co. of America, American Guarantee & Liability, Northern Insurance of New York) sued co-insurer Ironshore over coverage for sixteen Nevada construction-defect actions where the insureds had policies with both sets of carriers but were defended/indemnified only by Plaintiffs.
Ironshore denied coverage for the underlying claims based on a “Continuous or Progressive Injury or Damage” exclusion (and other policy defenses), asserting the damaging work predated its policy periods (2009–2011).
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, contribution, and equitable indemnity, alleging Ironshore wrongfully refused to defend/indemnify; Plaintiffs settled the underlying actions on behalf of insureds.
District court previously held Ironshore had a duty to defend in one underlying action (Garcia) and here considers Ironshore’s summary-judgment motion as to the remaining claims and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion.
Court applies Nevada law: duty to defend is broader than duty to indemnify; alleged complaint language controls whether a potential for coverage exists (any doubt resolves for insured).
Court grants Ironshore summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ declaratory-relief and equitable-indemnity claims, but denies summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ contribution claims because Ironshore failed to prove exclusions conclusively as to duty to indemnify.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether declaratory relief is appropriate	Plaintiffs seek declarations of coverage/liability for settled underlying suits	Ironshore: declaratory relief unnecessary because underlying suits concluded and indemnity/contribution suffice	Court: Declaratory relief declined; Ironshore wins on declaratory claims
Whether equitable indemnity is available between co-insurers	Plaintiffs assert equitable indemnity for insurers who paid defense/settlement costs	Ironshore: Nevada does not recognize equitable indemnity between co-insurers; no preexisting duty/relationship	Court: Grants summary judgment to Ironshore; Nevada law does not support such claims between co-insurers
Whether Ironshore had duty to defend	Plaintiffs: many underlying complaints are vague about timing; potential for sudden/accidental damage triggers duty to defend	Ironshore: exclusions (continuous/progressive injury) and other exclusions remove any potential for coverage, so no duty to defend	Court: Finds duty to defend was triggered for most underlying complaints because allegations were temporally vague and could include sudden/accidental damage; Ironshore improperly denied defense for those matters
Whether Ironshore has duty to indemnify / contribution liability	Plaintiffs: settlement creates presumption and contribution claim against co-insurer who wrongfully refused defense	Ironshore: Even if defense duty existed, it lacked duty to indemnify because exclusions apply	Court: Denies Ironshore summary judgment on contribution (Indemnity unresolved). Ironshore bears burden to prove exclusions conclusively; it failed to do so on summary judgment

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard; credibility and inference rules)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burden shifts and movant’s means to prevail)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must show genuine dispute requiring trial)
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626 (standard for showing factual dispute at summary judgment)
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (movant’s initial burden at summary judgment)
United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Frontier Ins. Co., 99 P.3d 1153 (Nev.) (duty to defend broader than duty to indemnify; potential for coverage rule)
Rodriguez v. Primadonna Co., LLC, 216 P.3d 793 (Nev.) (equitable indemnity requires preexisting legal relationship/duty)
Pack v. LaTourette, 277 P.3d 1246 (Nev.) (right of contribution among jointly/successively liable tortfeasors)