San Diego Law Review


Library of Congress Authority File


Document Type



This Comment addresses five sub- issues, as follows:

1. Does or should an insurer have a duty to defend when it "knows" that the insured is involved in collusive fraud? 2. Assuming there is "substantial" but inconclusive evidence of collusive fraud, does an insurer who refuses to defend thereby commit a breach of duty? 3. In connection with a contribution action, are there any "gatekeeper" duties owed by the payer to the non-payer which must be satisfied? 4. Given that the non-payer denied coverage on the basis of collusive fraud, what must be proven in a subsequent contribution action? 5. Assuming that liability must be proven in the contemplated contribution action, which party should have the burden of proof?

Included in

Law Commons