Lesmir and Rosen sued, arguing the $332,981 they spent defending the arbitration should be covered because the contract claims “mirrored,” shared a “common nexus of fact” with, and used the same legal defenses as the covered fiduciary duty allegations from the January 2023 demand. They leaned on Washington’s “reasonably related” doctrine – a rule that has, in some cases, forced insurers to pay defense costs on uncovered claims when those costs cannot practicably be separated from covered ones.
