Insurance Contracts and Judicial Discord Over Whether Liability Insurers' Must Defend Insureds' Allegedly Intentional and Immoral Conduct: A Historical and Empirical Review of Federal and State Courts' Declaratory Judgments – 1900-1997

摘要

There is a prevailing view among jurists and practitioners that a declaratory judgment action is an efficient, effective, and equitable method of helping litigants determine legal relations, rights, and obligations, especially under liability insurance contracts. It even has been argued that securing declaratory relief decreases the need to file multiple lawsuits to settle disputes involving legal rights. But does statistical and historical evidence strongly support these assumptions? The short answer is no. Without doubt, a declaratory judgment action is not the most effective or efficient means to resolve disputes under liability insurance contracts, because "filing for declaratory judgment may result in two lawsuits and two jury trials." This Article will present some compelling evidence arguing against the use of the declaratory judgment action to resolve duty-to-defend controversies in state and federal courts.