The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on its claim that a defense was not owed to an entity not named as the insured under the policy. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Order Denying Rip Van 898, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139269 (D. Nev. July 22, 2025).

    Rip Van was an LLC that owned and operated by Dooley Tu. Rip Van acquired the property at issue iin September 2011 (Black Forest property). In 2017, Tu emailed her broker, Michael Payne, asking for rental insurance quotes for several properties, including the Black Forest property. Payne sent a quote and Tu went to Payne's office to purchase the policy. Payne and Tu did not discuss the owner of the property, Rip Van, or whose name the policy should be in.

    The "Landlord Protection Policy" that Safeco issued to Tu was meant to insure the owner of the rental property. The policy, however,  named Dooley Tu as the "insured" and the Black Forest property as the "insured location." It was undisputed that Rip Van, not Tu, owned the property. 

    Christophe Brown drowned at the insured location, which was rented to Tania Guzman. Guzman ran Compassionate Heart Services, a behavioral health agency, out of the property and Guzman was a patient. Rip Van was unaware that Guzman was operating a business out of the property. 

    A claim was submitted to Safeco. The claim representative asked Payne about at the ownership issue and whether Rip Van or Tu asked that Rip Van be added as an additional insured to the Dooley Tu policy. Payne denied knowing that Rip Van owned the property. 

    Payne brokered eighteen policies with Safeco on Tu's behalf for different rental properties, all owned by LLCs. Tu's name did not appear as the registered owner or the deed to any of these policies. At no time did Safeco ask Tu about the ownership of the properties. Most of the policies listed Tu as the named insured, and some listed the LLC as an additional insured. 

    Brown's estate sued Guzman, Compassionate Heart Services, Tu, and Rip Van. Safeco represented Tu in the lawsuit and did not dispute that she was insured under the policy, but maintained that Rip Van was not an insured.

    Safeco sued Rip Van and the Brown estate seeking a declaration that the policy did not require Safeco to represent Rip Van in the underlying lawsuit. The court considered whether Rip Van could estop Safeco from arguing that the policy did not cover Rip Van. The court found there was a factual dispute as to whether Safeco knew that Rip Van was the owner and landlord of the Black Forest property at the time in entered the policy with Tu. As part of its underwriting process, Safeco could have ascertained through Tu or publicly accessible information that Rip Van was the owner of the property.

    There was also a factual dispute as to whether Rip Van was aware that the policy only covered liability for Tu. Defendants provided evidence that Tu made at least two claims to Safeco for property damage related to other properties, each of which was owned by an LLC but listed Tu as the insured. Neither claim was rejected by Safeco. Rip Van, perhaps acting in reliance on that conduct, did not get any other insurance. 

    Because material questions of fact remained on the issue of equitable estoppel, summary judgment was inappropriate on Safeco's claim for declaratory relief.