Which duty of the personal auto policy (PAP) insurer is considered broader?

The duty to defend is considered broader than the duty to indemnify because it encompasses a wider range of circumstances under which an insurer must provide legal defense for their insured. This duty exists even when the details of coverage are not entirely clear or when there is a potential for a claim to fall outside of what the policy explicitly covers.

In practice, this means that as long as there is a possibility that the allegations in a lawsuit could lead to a covered loss, the insurer is obligated to defend the insured, regardless of whether the insurer ultimately ends up being required to indemnify for the loss. This obligation to defend is a critical aspect of liability insurance, as it ensures that insured parties have the legal support needed to navigate legal challenges without excessive financial burden.

In contrast, the duty to indemnify pertains specifically to the insurer’s obligation to pay for damages or losses after a claim is determined to be valid. This is necessarily narrower because it only activates after a definitive conclusion about coverage is reached following the legal process. Hence, the duty to defend often arises in situations where the ultimate coverage may still be in dispute, highlighting its broader nature in terms of potential applicability.