Financial Indem. Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co., No. 16211
| Decision Date | 11 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 16211 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent. |
Theodore Tamba, Myron A. Martin, San Francisco, for appellant.
Low & Duryea, San Francisco, for respondent.
Plaintiff sued for declaratory relief to determine the rights and obligations of the parties arising from two public liability policies issued respectively by the parties to one Charles Tamagri, a trucking service operator, and particularly to recover half of the amount expended by plaintiff for attorney's fees and investigation expenses in defense of an action against the insured. Plaintiff appeals on an agreed statement of facts from the judgment denying recovery.
Questions Presented.
Defendant contended that prior to the accident upon which the action against the insured was based its policy had been cancelled and avoided. As the trial court found against defendant, on this defense and defendant has not appealed, we deem it unnecessary to discuss this contention.
The principal question is: Where policies of separate insurers provide for defense of the assured in case of suit, is one insurer entitled to contribution from the other insurer for expenses incurred in defense of a personal injury action brought against the assured?
Facts.
Both parties are California insurance corporations. Each delivered to Tamagri and filed with the Public Utilities Commission a policy of public liability insurance, $10,000-$20,000 personal injury and $5,000 property damage, and provided for defense of the assured in the event of suit. Defendant's policy was first in time of issue. Tamagri, driving a vehicle covered by both policies, was involved in an accident with an auto driven by Louis A. Ortiz, in which accident both Tamagri and Ortiz were killed. Ortiz's administratrix sued Tamagri's estate for Ortiz's death. Tamagri's administrator cross-complained for Tamagri's death. After two trials Tamagri's administrator obtained judgment for $20,000. Approximately one year and five months after the accident occurred defendant was informed by the manager of plaintiff of the pending lawsuit against the assured and requested to participate therein. Defendant refused. In the defense of the litigation plaintiff incurred expenses in the sum of $5,799.76. Defendant refused to pay any portion thereof.
Plaintiff brought this action for a declaratory judgment requiring defendant to contribute to the defense of the Ortiz action and for reimbursement of half of the expenses incurred and to be incurred by plaintiff in defending that action.
The issue of defendant's indemnity liability is immaterial. Each policy provided for defense of the assured in the event of suit. Plaintiff's policy provided for pro rata payment of a loss in the event there was other insurance. Defendant's policy provided, in case of other insurance, that it would pay only the excess of the loss over the amount of the other insurance. Attached to each policy was a 'Standard Form of Endorsement Prescribed by the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California' known as 'Form T & S 391' which apparently reduced the liability under each policy to $5,000 for personal injury. Most of the trial and a large portion of the briefs were devoted to the question of whether under the policies and the endorsement defendant's liability in the event Ortiz had recovered damages against Tamagri, would not have accrued until plaintiff had paid the full face value of its policy as limited by the rider, $5,000 or when it had paid only $2,500. The trial court found that the insured's policy with plaintiff constituted 'other insurance' and that defendant's policy was excess over and above the limits of plaintiff's policy and not pro rata insurance. Plaintiff attacks this finding. However, we fail to understand how this question is relevant or important to the real issues in this case. Tamagri won the personal injury action, so neither insurer was called upon to pay any amount of indemnity. Ortiz sued Tamagri for $100.680.58. Until the action was fully tried and judgment rendered, neither insurer would know what its indemnity liability was. Obviously the amount sued for was in excess of the total liability of both insurers under any theory. Each party was required by its own policy to defend Tamagri in that suit. *
Assuming that defendant's indemnity liability did not attach...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Signal Companies, Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co.
...rejected by the California courts. The Illinois court expressly relies upon a covey of cases in which Financial Indem. Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co., 132 Cal.App.2d 207, 210, 281 P.2d 883, is oft (erroneously) cited as a viable example of California authority for the proposition that the duty to......
-
Meritplan Ins. Co. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.
...the second count does not state a cause of action.' (Id., at p. 297, 12 Cal.Rptr. at p. 22.) In Financial Indem. Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co. (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 207, 281 P.2d 883, reference is made to the principle first quoted above from the Fidelity case. The court rejected the argument th......
-
Buss v. Superior Court
...(Continental Cas. Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 36, 17 Cal.Rptr. 12, 366 P.2d 455; Financial Indem. Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co. (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 207, 211, 281 P.2d 883, disapproved on another point, Continental Cas. Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 38, 17 Ca......
-
Continental Casualty Co. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.
...& Cas. Co. v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 280 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1960); Financial Indemnity Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co., 132 Cal.App.2d 207, 281 P.2d 883 (1955). Plaintiff defended Linch in accordance with its obligation, but there has certainly been no showing that......
-
CHAPTER 8
...liability. (Continental Cas. Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., (supra), 57 Cal. 2d at p. 36; Financial Indem. Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co. (1955) 132 Cal. App. 2d 207, 211, 281 P.2d 883, disapproved on another point, Continental Cas. Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., (supra), 57 Cal. 2d at p. 38.) It arises only a......