DUTY TO DEFEND FOR PAIR OF AU PAIR COMPANIES
Michael Sean Quinn, Ph.D., J.D., Etc.
Three companies supplied au pairs to customers in Colorado, and perhaps elsewhere. Allegedly they were not paying those participating in their program enough through various devices, so a number of the au pairs sued them all for price fixing under the anti-trust law. The groups also sued two of the companies for breach of fiduciary duties and misrepresentations to them, as well as under other legal theories.
The companies sought coverage from their insurer, Colony Insurance Company. It denied even a duty to defense. The District Court in Colorado agreed with the insurer that anti-trust violations are not insured, since they are not integral to the services sold. The third company, therefore was not entitled to a duty to defend.
The other ways the insureds treated the participants in its supply of services that it had recruited were potentially covered, and so the other two insured companies did have coverages, at least as to the duty to defend.
Assuming the au pairs from distant lands are right about how they were treated, does this send a chill through your toes. Women of the world unite?
Colony Insurance Company v. Expert Group International Company, 1:15-cv-02499 (D. Colorado, 2015)
Michael Sean Quinn
Law Office of Michael Sean Quinn
1300 West Lynn #208
Austin, Texas 78703
(Resumes: See Website or easily foundOnline Entries)
Originally posted on 05/22/2017 @ 5:39 pm