A veterinarian was entitled to a defense under his Veterinarian's Professional Liability Policy when sued for testimony given in an animal cruelty proceeding. See Centennial Ins. Co. v. Patterson, No. 08-1521, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8402 (1st Cir. April 23, 2009).
The insured was sued with eighty other defendants by Carol Murphy. Ms. Murphy's suit was based on the insured's alleged testimony against her at an Animal Possession Hearing and his alleged examination of her animals in connection with those proceedings.
The insured sought a defense from Centennial, which denied the claim and filed suit for declaratory relief. Centennial argued it had no duty to defend because the Murphy complaint did not allege a "veterinary incident." The policy defined "veterinary incident as "any malpractice, negligent act or omission, utterance, or publication of a libel or slander, or other defamatory or disparaging material . . . in the furnishing of professional veterinary services." The district court found Centennial had a duty to defend.
The First Circuit affirmed. The underlying complaint contained several allegations of wrongful conduct that could potentially be construed as negligence or malpractice. For example, Murphy alleged the insured "testified two calves that died expired because they had no food and water." Murphy's's allegations suggested the insured not only testified against her, but performed some type of professional veterinary service on the animals which Murphy regarded as wrongful and without her authorization.
Centennial also argued it was relieved of its duty to defend by an exclusion for any suit arising out of "any actual or alleged dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, malicious act or malicious omission" or any "willful violation" by the insured. Centennial contended there was no potential that the insured's alleged conduct did not involve a dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, malicious act, or malicious omission. Murphy's conclusory allegations claimed the insured committed various crimes, such as racketeering and perjury, which if proved, would fall within the exclusion. Nevertheless, it was not necessary that all claims against the insured raise the possibility of coverage to trigger the insurer's duty to defend.
