Bank of the West v. Superior Court

Decision Date30 July 1992
Docket NumberNo. S019556,S019556
Citation10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538,2 Cal.4th 1254,833 P.2d 545
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
Parties, 833 P.2d 545, 61 USLW 2102 BANK OF THE WEST, Petitioner v. THE SUPERIOR COURT of CONTRA Costa COUNTY, Respondent. INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Real Parties in Interest.

[2 Cal.4th 1257] [833 P.2d 546] Severson & Werson, Jan T. Chilton and William L. Stern, San Francisco, for petitioner.

[833 P.2d 547] Martha Churchill, Royal Oak, Mich., Thomas & Porrazzo, Michael H. Porrazzo, San Jose, Anderson, Kill, Olick & Oshinsky, Eugene R. Anderson, William G. Passannante, New York City, Cotchett, Illston & Pitre, Joseph W. Cotchett, Susan Illston, Marie Seth Weiner, Burlingame, Morgan, Ruby, Schofield, Franich & Fredkin, Allen J. Ruby, Lexie D. Schroeder, San Jose, Thomas T. Anderson, Indio, Sherry N. Bass, Newport Beach, David A. Beck, Morrison & Hecker, P. John Owen, Phoenix, Ariz., Ann S. DuRoss, Richard J. Osterman, Jr., Joan E. Smiley, Washington, D.C., Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, Kurt W. Melchior, Jared E. Peterson, Alison S. Hightower, Patricia Lee Connors, San Francisco, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, Denise M. Amantea, Richard F. Cauley, Palo Alto, Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson & Falk, Denis T. Rice, Helane L. Morrison, Kathryn M. Nelson, H. Joseph Escher, III, San Francisco, Alan T. Foster, Mountain View, as amici curiae on behalf of petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Lawrence O. Monin, Michael A. Mathews, Andre Hassid, San Francisco, Crosby, Heafy, Roach & May, Raoul D. Kennedy, Peter W. Davis, Richard de Saint Phalle, Dolores A. Dalton, Oakland, Paul H. Breslin, Walnut Creek, Frank Gilbert, Jesse I. Santana, James C. Martin and James H. Kallianis, Jr., Oakland, for real parties in interest.

Baker, Hostetler, McCutchen & Black, Philip K. Verleger, Donna R. Black, Martin J. McTigue, Jr., Los Angeles, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, Phyllis E. Andelin, San Francisco, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, James P. Wagoner, James H. Wilkins, Robert K. Landen, Fresno, Morton, Lulofs & Allen, Michael Charles Comyns, Oakland, Horvitz & Levy, Ellis J. Horvitz, Peter Abrahams, Lisa Perrochet, Encino, Alan I. Widiss, Iowa City, Iowa, Cummins & White, James D. Otto, Kent M. Bridwell, Los Angeles, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, Roy G. Weatherup, Lawrence A. [2 Cal.4th 1258] Tabb, Santa Monica, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Irving H. Greines and Feris M. Greenberger, Beverly Hills, as amici curiae on behalf of real parties in interest.

PANELLI, Associate Justice.

Comprehensive general liability (CGL) insurance policies generally include coverage for "advertising injury." This coverage, as ordinarily written, applies to "damages" the insured must pay for injury arising out of "unfair competition" occurring in the course of the insured's "advertising activities." We granted review to consider questions regarding the scope of coverage afforded by this standard policy language. As we shall explain, we hold that the CGL policy does not cover claims for advertising injury that arose under the Unfair Business Practices Act. (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq. 1 )

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs Industrial Indemnity Company and Industrial Insurance Company of Hawaii, Ltd. (collectively Industrial) have sued for a declaratory judgment determining their obligations under a CGL policy issued to Central Bank. Defendant Bank of the West is Central Bank's successor in interest. (This opinion refers to both entities collectively as the Bank.) Judgment has not been entered. However, by granting Industrial's motion for summary adjudication of issues the trial court has decided that language in the Bank's CGL policy relating to "advertising injury" does not give rise to coverage for the particular claims involved in this case. It is this order that we are reviewing. We are not called upon to decide any other coverage issues or any issues involving the duty to defend.

The coverage dispute arises out of the Bank's settlement of a consumer class action entitled Fallat v. Central Bank (S.F.Super.Ct., No. 865597). To summarize the relevant facts, the Bank developed a program to finance automobile insurance premiums

[833 P.2d 548] for consumers who preferred to pay in installments. The Bank did not advertise the so-called "Coast Program" directly to consumers. Instead, the Bank informed insurance agents that it was willing to lend money to finance premiums and that it would pay fees to agents who referred such business to the Bank. Nor did consumers apply directly to the Bank for loans. Instead, when a consumer expressed a desire to extend payment the insurance agent would ask for a down payment of 20 to 30 percent, obtain the consumer's power of attorney, and apply for a loan [2 Cal.4th 1259] in the consumer's name. Sometime later, the consumer would receive notice of the loan's acceptance by the Bank and disclosure of its terms. Until receiving such notice, many consumers were unaware both of the Coast Program's existence and that loans had in fact been made. Many were also unaware of the terms of the loans, which included interest at rates of over 126 percent, as well as substantial fees and penalties. Some consumers, upon receiving notification, sought to cancel their loans by paying the balance due. However, the Bank did not permit cancellation

In their complaint against the Bank, the Fallat plaintiffs alleged violations of the federal Truth-in-Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.), the Unruh Act (Civ.Code, § 1801 et seq.), the Unfair Business Practices Act (§ 17200 et seq.), and a state statute that prohibits excessive liquidated damages (Civ.Code, § 1671). The Fallat plaintiffs also alleged that the loans were unconscionable and that the Bank had breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The case was removed to federal court, which remanded all but the federal claims. (Fallat v. Central Bank (N.D.Cal., No. C-86-6521 RFP).) On the Fallat plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the federal court held that the Bank had violated the Truth-in-Lending Act by miscalculating and misdisclosing the interest rate and by failing to give disclosures required by federal law before the loans were consummated. (See 15 U.S.C. § 1638.) In its order, the court explained that the Bank's miscalculation of interest "resulted in an understatement of an already astronomical APR by over 20 percentage points." The court also found that the additional "error" of untimely disclosure "was built into the incentives given to insurance agents responsible for recommending the Coast Program to their clients." As the court explained, "[t]o the extent insurance agents' compensation is tied to their level of policy sales, such agents have a strong incentive to 'sell' a loan program like the Coast Program without making the required [Truth-in-Lending Act] disclosures that could jeopardize a potential sale."

Several months after the federal court ruled, the state court in Fallat addressed the parties' motions for summary adjudication of issues related to the state law claims. The court's order disposing of these motions eliminated the plaintiffs' claims under the Unruh Act (Civ.Code, § 1801 et seq.) and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing but allowed the remaining claims to proceed.

The federal and state court rulings considerably narrowed the scope of the dispute between the Fallat plaintiffs and the Bank. Although the plaintiffs continued to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, the only remaining [2 Cal.4th 1260] claims under which plaintiffs sought to recover money were their claims under the Unfair Business Practices Act (§ 17203), the statute prohibiting excessive liquidated damages (Civ.Code, § 1671), and the Truth-in-Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1640). In their complaint, the Fallat plaintiffs incorporated each of their claims into their request for relief under the Unfair Business Practices Act. Indeed, the Fallat plaintiffs' only demand for money, other than for punitive damages and attorneys' fees, was for "restitution ... of any and all amounts collected by defendants through their unlawful and unfair business practices...." (Cf. § 17203 [authorizing such relief].)

It was in this posture that the Fallat case settled. Pursuant to a class-wide settlement agreement, the Bank paid the plaintiffs $500,000 and attorneys fees, and agreed to make several changes in the operation

[833 P.2d 549] of its Coast Program. The settlement agreement did not characterize the $500,000 payment as attributable to any particular claim. However, in the parties' joint motion for approval of the settlement the Fallat plaintiffs' counsel expressed the opinion that $500,000 represented the amount that could be recovered either as the return of unlawful liquidated damages (Civ.Code, § 1671) or as the maximum statutory recovery under the Truth-in-Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(2)(B))

At some point before the Fallat parties agreed to settle, the Bank began to assert that its CGL policy covered the claims in that action. Industrial responded by filing a complaint for declaratory judgment, asking the court to declare that the policy did not provide coverage. The Bank cross-complained for breach of the insurance contract.

The ensuing litigation focused on a single theory of coverage: The Bank sought to prove that the amounts it had paid to the Fallat plaintiffs were "damages" for "unfair competition" that occurred in the course of the Bank's "advertising activities." To support its argument, the Bank looked to the statutory definition of "unfair competition" contained in the Unfair Business Practices Act. (§ 17200.) 2 Industrial, in contrast, sought to prove that the policy referred to the common law tort of unfair competition rather than to conduct prohibited by the act. Industrial also sought to prove that insurance was not available for restitutionary relief under the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1376 cases
  • De La Torre v. Cashcall, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 13, 2018
    ...in remedies. (E.g., Cel-Tech , supra , 20 Cal.4th at p. 179, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 548, 973 P.2d 527 ; Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1266, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538, 833 P.2d 545 ; Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1152, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 63 P......
  • KWIKSET CORPORATION v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY
    • United States
    • California Superior Court
    • January 27, 2011
    ...Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 181 [83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 548, 973 P.2d 527]; see also Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1266 [10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 538, 833 P.2d 545] [“The Legislature intended this ‘sweeping language’ to include ‘ “anything that can properly be called ......
  • Velazquez v. Gmac Mortg. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • December 22, 2008
    ...and in the circumstances of that case, and cannot be found to be ambiguous in the abstract." Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1265, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538, 833 P.2d 545 (1992). See also Trustees of So. Cal. IBEW v. Flores, 519 F.3d 1045, 1047 (9th 1. Interest Rate Change Plai......
  • Albert v. Truck Ins. Exch.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 15, 2018
    ...Ins. Co. of America (2010) 49 Cal.4th 315, 321, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 612, 232 P.3d 612 ; Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, 1264, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 538, 833 P.2d 545 ( Bank of the West ); see AIU Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, 821-822, 274 Cal.Rptr. 820, 799......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • New Policies, Less Coverage: Insurance Coverage for Intellectual Property Claims
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 30, 2004
    ...National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Siliconix, Inc. 729 F.Supp. 77, 79 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (same); (Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1254 (1992) ("unfair competition" covers only common law unfair competition claims, not statutory unfair trade 5 See American Economy Ins. Co. v. Reboan......
  • California Prop. 64 Reins In Victimless Unfair Competition Consumer Lawsuits
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 13, 2004
    ...3d 750 (1988). 4 Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 17 Cal. 4th 553, 565 (1998). 5 Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1254 (1992); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1105 (1996), disapproved on other grounds, Cel- Tech Communi......
  • Yahoo, Inc. V. National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, PA
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 23, 2022
    ...supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 501; see Minkler v. Safeco Ins. Co. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 315, 321-322; Bank of the West v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1254, Based on the above rules of interpretation, the Supreme Court acknowledged that use of the word "material" immediately before the restrictive......
  • How To Avoid Getting Whacked By The Doctrine Of Reasonable Expectations
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 28, 2008
    ...appreciated. See Croskey, supra n. 4, 5 CONN. INS. L. J. at 462-63. The court's subsequent decision in Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 833 P.2d 545 1992) made the implications of the new AIU rule abundantly clear, however. In Bank of the West, the policyholder sought coverage for a sett......
14 books & journal articles
  • California. Practice Text
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library State Antitrust Practice and Statutes (FIFTH). Volume I
    • December 9, 2014
    ...not required. 616 The California Supreme Court in 2009 608. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200-17209. 609. Bank of the W. v. Superior Court, 833 P.2d 545, 551 (Cal. 1992). 610. Application Group v. Hunter Group, 61 Cal. App. 4th 881, 906-07 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (quoting Stoiber v. Honeychuck, ......
  • Business torts and actions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Causes of Action
    • March 31, 2022
    ...any damage. [Greencycle Paint, Inc. v. Paintcare, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 3d 438 (N.D. Cal. 2017).]; see Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 1264, 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 538, 544 (1992); Bronco Wine Co. v. Frank A. Logoluso Farms, 214 Cal. App. 3d 699, 704, 262 Cal. Rptr. 899 (1989); ......
  • Insurance Recovery for Environmental Liabilities
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Environmental litigation: law and strategy
    • June 23, 2009
    ...damages). 43. See, e.g. , Level 3 Commc’ns, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 272 F.3d 908, 910 (7th Cir. 2001); Bank of the W. v. Superior Court, 833 P.2d 545, 552–53 (Cal. 1992). 44. 16 P.3d 94, 104 (Cal. 2001) (known as the “ Powerine decision,” after the underlying plaintiff, Powerine Oil Company)......
  • Strategic Considerations for IP Litigators and Corporate Counsel Prosecuting and Defending IP Disputes: Securing Coverage Despite Limited Intellectual Property Coverage
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 11-2, November 2018
    • November 1, 2018
    ...underlying case does not mean the facts against the policyholder have necessarily calcified.”). 22. Bank of the W. v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 1272 (1992) (“[T]he Unfair Business Practices Act does not authorize an award of damages, and a definition of ‘unfair competition’ that cann......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT