By: Derek Hawkins//July 25, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Cincinnati Insurance Company v. H.D. Smith, LLC
Case No.: 15-2825
Officials: BAUER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District Judge.
Focus: Duty to Defend
Plain language of insurance policy requires appellant to defend plaintiff in declaratory judgment action.
“The mother’s suit is covered even though she seeks her own damages (the money she spent to care for her son), not damages on behalf of her son (such as his pain and suffering or money he lost because he missed work). Legally, the re‐ sult is no different merely because the plaintiff is a state in‐ stead of a mother. Cincinnati’s lawyer acknowledged as much but argued this case is different in fact because West Virginia does not actually seek reimbursement for money it spent because of its citizens’ injuries. Cincinnati argues—and the district court held—that this suit is like Medmarc, where we held that no duty to defend arose. But Medmarc is readily distinguishable. In that case, the insured party sold baby bot‐ tles and similar consumer products. When buyers learned that the products contained a dangerous chemical, they re‐ fused to use them. The buyers filed suit, complaining about the money they wasted by buying unusable products. But importantly, “the plaintiffs never allege[d] that they or their children ever used the products or were actually exposed to the [harmful chemical].” 612 F.3d at 610. In other words, there was “no claim of bodily injury in any form.” Id. at 616.”
Reversed