PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Excess / No, SIR: The Self-Insured Retains a Duty of Self-Defense

No, SIR: The Self-Insured Retains a Duty of Self-Defense

January 18, 2013 by John R. Hart

In the realm of liability insurance, the terms “deductible” and “self-insured retention” are often used interchangeably, but the two provisions have important differences.  Among other things, “policies which are subject to self-insured retentions are ‘excess policies’ which have no duty to indemnify until the self-insured retention is exhausted.”  Century Indemnity Co. v. The Marine Group, No. 3:08-CV-01375-AC (D. Ore. Dec. 3, 2012), quoting Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Domino’s Pizza, 144 F.3d 1270, 1276–1277 (9th Cir.1998).  This distinction is “well recognized” (id.), but it is sometimes overlooked or ignored.  See, e.g. Alticor, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, No. 1:07-cv-1079 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 4, 2013) (“the . . . policy has a . . . $2 million deductible, or self-insured retention”).

An insurer’s liability under an excess policy is typically subject to conditions that are unrelated to the insured loss—exhaustion of the underlying insurance being the most common.  In policies subject to self-insured retentions, therefore, the insured must sometimes fulfill the responsibilities of an insurer.

State National Insurance Co. v. County of Camden, Civ. No. 08-5128 (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2012), involved a liability policy issued to the picturesque County of Camden, New Jersey.  The policy was subject to a Self-Insured Retention (“SIR”) Endorsement, which obligated the County to “provide an adequate defense and investigation of any action for . . . actual, potential or alleged damages.”   In the event the County failed to provide that defense and investigation, the Endorsement stated that the insurer “shall not be liable for any damages or costs or expenses resulting from” the underlying occurrence.”

The County and its insurer ultimately squared off in litigation over responsibility for a multi-million dollar award to a motorist who collided with one of the County’s guardrails.  One of the discovery disputes in that litigation made it necessary for the court to determine which party bore the burden of proof on the issue of whether the County had, in fact, adequately investigated and defended the underlying claim.

The County argued that the SIR Endorsement was “essentially an exclusion cloaked in a condition precedent’s clothing,” but the court concluded that the Endorsement had the “essential character” of a condition precedent.  For that reason, it held that the County, as insured, bears the burden of proving that it provided itself with an “adequate defense.”  If the County cannot satisfy that burden, it cannot recover under its policy.

The court called Camden a “close question,” which shows it is important for a self-insured retention to spell out the terms that distinguish it from a deductible.  American Safety Cas. Ins. Co. v. City of Waukegan, 678 F.3d 475, 481-82 (7th Cir. 2012), teaches the same lesson.  In Waukegan, the insurer argued that its duty to defend did not attach until the insured city had both incurred and paid $100,000 in legal expenses.  The Seventh Circuit dismissed the argument, finding that the insurer was improperly relying on “[a] $100,000 deductible(which the policy calls a ‘self-insured retention’).”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Live Free of Actual Knowledge or Coverage Will Die

Next Article »

NAIC Hears Renewed Calls for Regulation of Automated Claims Tools

About John R. Hart

John Hart is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in West Palm Beach, Florida. Connect with John on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. Additional Insureds Deserve Attention Too: New York Court Finds Insurer’s Reservation of Rights to Named Insured Did Not Constitute Notice to Additional Insured Under § 3420(d)(2)
  2. For “At-Issue Waiver,” The Best Defense May Not Be An Affirmative Defense
  3. New Jersey Appellate Court Keeps “Running Spigot” Open on Allocation of Defense Costs Under Non-Eroding-Limit Fronting Policies (and Other Spooky Tales from the Towers of Coverage Past)
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim
  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing