Skip to main content

Anthem Electronics, Inc. v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, a California Corporation Federal Insurance Company, an Indiana Corporation

9th CircuitSeptember 5, 2002No. 01-16402Cited 67 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Schroeder, Nelson, Reinhardt
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment for the insurers and granted partial summary judgment to Anthem, holding that the insurance policies' duty to defend was triggered because the complaint alleged potential coverage under the policies.

What This Ruling Means

**Anthem Electronics v. Pacific Employers Insurance Company** This case was about an insurance dispute between Anthem Electronics and two insurance companies. Anthem had purchased insurance policies that were supposed to provide legal defense coverage when the company faced certain types of lawsuits. When Anthem was sued and needed legal defense, the insurance companies refused to provide it, claiming they weren't required to defend Anthem under the terms of the policies. The court sided with Anthem Electronics. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's decision and ruled that the insurance companies did have a "duty to defend" Anthem. The court found that because the original lawsuit against Anthem contained allegations that could potentially be covered under the insurance policies, the insurers were required to provide legal defense. This matters for workers because it shows how courts interpret insurance coverage that protects companies. When employers have proper insurance coverage for employment-related lawsuits, it can help ensure that legal disputes are handled appropriately and that companies remain financially stable to continue employing workers. The ruling reinforces that insurance companies must honor their coverage obligations when policy terms are met.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.