Continental Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 27 July 1995 |
Docket Number | No. B088741,B088741 |
Citation | 37 Cal.App.4th 69,43 Cal.Rptr.2d 374 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5920, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,110 CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent. Dee BANGERTER, Lee Bangerter, and Ted Nelson, Real Parties in Interest. |
Long & Levit, Don A. Lesser, Laura P. Nash and Jeanette Traverso, San Francisco, for petitioner.
No appearance by respondent.
Shernoff, Bidart & Darras, Sharon J. Arkin, Greene, Broillet, Taylor & Wheeler and John C. Taylor, Los Angeles, for real parties in interest.
An insurer which had issued a Directors and Officers ("D & O") liability policy sought a summary judgment in a bad faith action brought by three director insureds who alleged that the insurer had unreasonably failed to defend or indemnify them in a timely manner thus causing them economic loss and emotional distress. The trial court denied the summary judgment and the insurer seeks writ relief.
Continental Insurance Company ("Continental") 1 seeks a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to vacate its denial of Continental's motion for summary judgment in the action filed by the real parties in interest, Dee Bangerter, Lee Bangerter and Ted Nelson (collectively, the "plaintiffs") and to issue a new and different order granting said motion. Because we conclude that an issue of
material fact does exist as to whether the plaintiffs in fact suffered any economic loss by virtue of Continental's actions under the policy, we deny the requested writ relief.
The plaintiffs are the former directors of a corporation known as Winn Enterprises and a subsidiary corporation, KF Dairies, Inc. During the period October 25, 1983 through October 25, 1987, they were insured for liability for "wrongful acts" committed in their capacity as directors under Continental's "claims made" Directors' and Officers' Liability and Company Reimbursement Policy (Policy No. HI177466; hereinafter the "policy"). The policy provided coverage (1) to Winn Enterprises (and any subsidiaries) under section A, the Company Reimbursement for Directors and Officers Liability and (2) to the Directors and Officers of Winn Enterprises (and any subsidiaries) under section B of the policy. It is this latter section of the policy which is the subject of these proceedings.
Before reviewing the factual context in which this case arises, it would be useful to set forth, at least in summary fashion, the relevant provisions of the policy.
By endorsements, the policy has a $5 million limit of Continental's total liability; it also provides for an insured retention of $250,000. 3 The insuring agreement provided, "This policy shall, subject to its terms, conditions and limitations as hereinafter provided, pay on behalf of each and every person who was or now is ... a director or officer of the corporation ... loss (as hereinafter defined) arising from any claim or claims made against the insureds ... during the policy period by reason of any wrongful act (as hereinafter defined) in their respective capacities as directors or officers...."
The terms "loss" and "wrongful act" were defined in clause 2, subparagraphs (C) and (D) of the policy as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
Finally, the policy spelled out the manner in which actual and potential claims would be reported to Continental:
In June of 1983, Winn Enterprises acquired all of the common stock of KF Foods, Inc., in a leveraged buyout. KF Foods was the parent company of KF Dairies, Inc. ("KFD"). The plaintiffs also became directors of KFD. In June of 1985, KFD acquired Foremost Dairies, Inc. ("Foremost"), in another leveraged buyout. It is this transaction which led to this litigation. Prior to KFD's acquisition of Foremost, Foremost itself had been the subject of still another leveraged buyout transaction. As a result, both KFD and Foremost were heavily burdened with debt even before KFD's leveraged acquisition of Foremost. These circumstances ultimately led to the bankruptcy and liquidation of both KFD and Foremost in 1986.
On October 21, 1986, the unsecured creditors committees of these two bankrupt corporations gave written notice of their claims based upon the directors' "breaches of duty and mismanagement which has resulted [in] damage to [the] creditors" and that such "claims may be asserted against [the directors." On October 23, 1987, just two days prior to the expiration of the extended "discovery period," the several directors, including plaintiffs, gave written notice to Continental, through Winn Enterprises' risk management consultant, in which there were identified a number of events and circumstances which had occurred during the policy period and which, according to the notice, constituted "potential claims" within the meaning of the "Loss Provisions" clause of the policy (clause 7(C)).
This notice was extensive and detailed. 5 It listed, for example, the creation of various compensation arrangements with current or former managing officers, employment and severance contracts, incentive plans, stock option agreements and pension benefit agreements, all or any of which might be attacked by corporate creditors, shareholders or bondholders as wrongful self-dealing or mismanagement. More to the point of the issue raised in this case, the notice specifically called attention to the potentiality of the On June 30, 1988, eight months after the expiration of the policy's extended coverage period, the underlying action was filed against the plaintiffs and other defendants (KF Dairies, Inc., et al., v. Citicorp North America, Inc., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court No. C690962). It was alleged that the plaintiffs (and other directors) had breached their fiduciary duties as directors of KF Dairies by approving the leveraged acquisition of Foremost in 1985 which, the complaint alleged, was not in the best interest of KF Dairies and ultimately caused its demise.
very claim which was later asserted against Winn Enterprises and for which coverage was sought. Paragraph 14 of the October 23, 1987 notice stated, in pertinent part, Emphasis added.)
In the fall of 1988, the plaintiffs notified Continental of this action and requested coverage and a defense under the policy. 6 Continental promptly denied coverage on the principal ground that the claim set out in the underlying action had not been made during the policy period. Continental asserted that the potential claim notice of October 23, 1987 was inadequate notice to satisfy the requirements of clause 7(C). Finally, Continental rejected plaintiff's request for a defense of the underlying action on the ground that the policy did not promise a defense and Continental therefore had no obligation to provide one.
In spite of this denial, however, Continental ultimately did participate in settlement discussions with respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rli Ins. Co. v. City of Visalia
...lead to an absurd result, we ascertain this intent from the written provisions and go no further." Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Superior Court , 37 Cal. App. 4th 69, 81, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 374 (1995). The Court need not address Visalia's additional arguments since it finds that the meaning of Policy excl......
-
Saarman Constr., Ltd. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. 15–cv–03548–JST
...issue of triable fact regarding its tort claims, there is no basis for an award of punitive damages. Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Superior Court , 37 Cal.App.4th 69, 86, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 374 (1995).D. Claim for Declaratory ReliefSaarman also seeks a declaration that Ironshore owed Saarman a duty to def......
-
Emerald Bay Community v. Golden Eagle Ins.
...Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 121, 127, 128, 3 Cal. Rptr.2d 666, 822 P.2d 374; accord Continental Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 69, 86, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 374 ["In the absence of any economic loss there is no invasion of plaintiff's property rights to which their ......
-
Waters v. United Services Auto. Assn.
...established before an insured can recover emotional distress damages in a bad faith case. (See also Continental Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 69, 85, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 374 [denying a carrier's petition for a writ compelling the trial court to grant summary judgment but notin......