Fed. Ins. Co. v. MBL, Inc.
Decision Date | 26 August 2013 |
Docket Number | H036296,H036578 |
Citation | 219 Cal.App.4th 29,160 Cal.Rptr.3d 910 |
Parties | FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants, and Respondents, v. MBL, INC., Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. Great American Insurance Company, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Appellant, v. Federal Insurance Company et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See 2 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Insurance, § 287 et seq.
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. CV114309, CV119165)
Barber Law Group, San Francisco,Bryan M. Barber, Steven D. Meier, San Diego, for Plaintiff/Respondent: Nationwide Indemnity Co. Case Nos. H036296, H036578
Duane Morris, Paul J. Killion, San Francisco, Dominica C. Anderson, Michael J. Dickman, for Plaintiff/Cross-defendant/Respondent: Great American Insurance Company Case Nos. H036296, H036578
After soil and groundwater contamination in the City of Modesto was traced back to a dry cleaning facility known as Halford's Cleaner's (Halford's), the federal government brought a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) action against the owners of the property on which Halford's was located, as well as the lessees who owned and/or operated the facility, to recover the costs of monitoring and remediating the contamination.1 The defendants in the Lyon action subsequently filed third-party actions against, among others, appellant MBL, Inc. (MBL), a supplier of dry cleaning products including perchloroethylene (PCE), seeking indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief.
MBL tendered the defense of these third-party actions to its insurers, Federal Insurance Company (Federal), Centennial Insurance Company (Centennial), Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company (Atlantic), Nationwide Indemnity Company (Nationwide), Utica Mutual Insurance Company (Utica) and Great American Insurance Company (Great American) (hereafter collectively referred to as Insurers). The Insurers accepted the tender of defense, subject to reservations of various rights, and retained counsel to provide MBL with a defense. MBL refused to accept retained counsel, arguing the Insurers' reservations of rights created a conflict of interest and demanding the Insurers instead pay for counsel of MBL's choosing. The Insurers denied there was any such conflict of interest and filed declaratory relief actions. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Insurers, finding there was no actual conflict of interest. On appeal, MBL contends the trial court erred in finding the Insurers were entitled to declaratory relief. We shall affirm.
In a related appeal, Great American seeks to preserve its right to equitable contribution from the other Insurers in the event MBL's appeal is successful. Alone among the Insurers, Great American paid MBL's independent counsel for the costs of defending the third-party actions, subject to a reservation of the right to reimbursement from MBL if it succeeded in its declaratory relief action. Since we are affirming the judgments in favor of the Insurers on the question of MBL's right to independent counsel—thus confirming that none of the Insurers, Great American included, was obligated to pay such counsel—Great American's appeal is moot and shall be dismissed.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
MBL supplies PCE, and other dry cleaning products, to dry cleaning facilities, and has done so for a number of years. In 2007, MBL was named as a defendant in a number of third-party complaints and cross-complaints filed in the Lyon action. According to the allegations of the Lyon action, wastewater containing PCE was discharged into the sewer system as part of Halford's dry cleaning operations until the mid–1980s. PCE was also leaking from an old dry cleaning machine through the floor of the facility into the soil and groundwater. In 1989, the site was placed on the National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites.
Clean up activities at the site, which are ongoing, began in 2000 when the EPA installed a groundwater treatment system and a soil vapor extraction system at the property.
The third-party complaints and cross-complaints alleged that MBL, among others: (1) purchased and resold chlorinated solvents to Halford's; (2) distributed, designed, assembled, maintained, controlled, operated and/or repaired parts of Halford's equipment; (3) engaged in service visits and inspections on Halford's premises, including testing and inspecting Halford's equipment and witnessing Halford's disposal of chlorinated solvents; (4) was legally responsible for and committed tortious acts; and, (5) in doing so acted as a coconspirator, aider, abettor, fraudulent transferee and fraudulent transferor of the other third-party defendants. The complaints sought contribution, equitable indemnity and declaratory relief from MBL.
MBL filed a cross-claim in the Lyon action which named as cross-defendants, among others, the City of Modesto, McGraw Edison Company and Bowe Permac, Inc.
MBL retained defense counsel, who tendered the defense of the Lyon action to the Insurers, requesting they appoint Cumis2 counsel. The Insurers accepted the tender of defense subject to various reservations of rights, detailed below, and appointed counsel to defend MBL. MBL refused to allow the Insurers' appointed counsel to associate as defense counsel, asserting it was entitled to independent counsel of its own choosing pursuant to Civil Code section 2860.3 The Insurers advised MBL it was only entitled to Cumis counsel if their reservations of rights created a conflict of interest and, with the exception of Great American, refused to pay the defense costs incurred by MBL's counsel.4
Great American issued primary general liability insurance policies to MBL with policy periods from November 1, 1980 to November 1, 1983 (policy No. BP 2180454), November 1, 1983 to November 1, 1984 (policy No. BP 6272405–00) and November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1985 (policy No. BP 6272405–01).
Each of the Great American policies contained the following language regarding the duty to defend: “The company shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent, and may make such investigation and settlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient, but the company shall not be obligated to pay any claim or judgment or to defend any suit after the applicable limit of the company's liability has been exhausted by payment of judgments settlements.”
Great American's reservations of rights explained that it “reserves its rights to decline coverage for any damages resulting from an occurrence outside of Great American's policy period,” and that “Great American's duty to indemnify, if any, shall not exceed the remaining available limits under the policies at issue.” Great American also stated that “[t]o the extent that punitive damages are awarded against MBL, such damages would not be covered,” and “Great American reserves the right to seek reallocation and/or reimbursement pursuant to Buss v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 35, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366, 939 P.2d 766.”
Nationwide issued three liability policies to MBL which covered the period from November 1, 1991 to November 1, 1994. These policies contained the following language relating to Nationwide's duty to defend: The policies also provide that
Each of the Nationwide policies also contains pollution exclusions. The 1992 to 1993 policies exclude coverage for:
The 1993–1994 policy excludes coverage for bodily injury or property damage “which would not have occurred in whole or part but for the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants at any time”; losses or expenses arising out of any “request, demand or order that any insured or others test for, monitor, clean up, remove, contain, treat,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
L.A. Terminals, Inc. v. United Nat'l Ins. Co.
...that defense, for instance to later deny coverage, withdraw defense, or disclaim indemnity. See Fed. Ins. Co. v. MBL, Inc. , 219 Cal. App. 4th 29, 42–44, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 910 (2013). Not every reservation of rights by an insurer necessarily constitutes a conflict of interest requiring the in......
-
Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...Concepts, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 999, 1007–1008, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 882 ; Federal Ins. Co. v. MBL, Inc. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 29, 42, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 910.) An attorney's duty of loyalty to the client is so strong that it “forbids any act that would interfere with the......
-
Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Newlin
...policy, the insured is entitled to retain its own independent counsel at the insurer's expense." Fed. Ins. Co. v. MBL, Inc. , 219 Cal. App. 4th 29, 41, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 910 (2013) (citing Cumis Ins. Society, Inc. , 162 Cal. App. 3d at 364, 208 Cal.Rptr. 494 ). Section 2860 " ‘clarifies and l......
-
Sempra Energy v. Associated Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs. Ltd.
...litigated in the underlying action, there is no conflict of interest requiring independent counsel." Fed. Ins. Co. v. MBL, Inc. , 219 Cal. App. 4th 29, 42, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 910 (2013).Here, Continental reserves rights unrelated to the Underlying Lawsuits. Continental reserves the rights to a......
-
Nevada Supreme Court Holds That California Cumis Rule Applies In Nevada, But An Actual Conflict Is A Prerequisite For Independent Counsel
...Ins. Soc'y, 162 Cal. App. 3d 358 (1984), and the analysis of the California Court of Appeal's decision in Fed. Ins. Co. v. MBL, Inc., 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 910, 920 (Ct. App. 2013), a case in which Duane Morris LLP represented the insurer, also applies in Nevada. With its decision in State Farm......
-
The California Supreme Court Lets Stand The Federal Ins. v. MBL Cumis Decision
...California Supreme Court denied MBL's petition for review from the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Federal Ins. Co. v. MBL (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 29. In addition, the Supreme Court also denied eight different requests to depublish the decision filed by parties aligned with the insured.......
-
Investigating coverage
...Exchange, 61 Cal. App. 4th 999 (1998). However, in 2013 the California Court of Appeal held in Federal Insurance v. MBL, Inc. (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 29 that the insurer had no duty to appoint independent “cumis” counsel for a provider of PCE (perchlorethelene) in an environmental cleanup ......