Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
Decision Date | 30 March 1989 |
Docket Number | S.F. 25060 |
Citation | 48 Cal.3d 395,257 Cal.Rptr. 292,770 P.2d 704 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 770 P.2d 704 Jack I. GARVEY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Rogers, Joseph, O'Donnell & Quinn, Joseph W. Rogers, Jr., Susan M. Popik and Leo F. Orenstein, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.
Horvitz, Levy & American, Ellis J. Horvitz, Stuart B. Esner, Michael R. Tyler, Encino, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, John R. Maloney, Donald J. Greene and Ellen August, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.
Bianco, Brandi, Jones & Rudy, Bianco, Brandi, Jones, Shane & Rudy, Feeney, Sparks & Rudy, San Francisco, David W. Rudy, Oakland, Thomas E. Feeney, Joel P. Gumbiner and Terry Senne, San Francisco, for plaintiffs and respondents.
Fadem, Berger & Norton, Michael M. Berger, Los Angeles, Harry V. Lehmann, Novato, Hal Chase, Jr., Larkspur, Roland Berard, James P. Nevin, Novato, Browne Greene, Los Angeles, Charles O'Reilly, Santa Monica, Leonard Sachs, Robert Steinberg, Douglas DeVries, Sacramento, James R. McGrath, Glendale, Harvey R. Levine, San Diego, Sanford Gage, Beverly Hills, Don Caffray, Long Beach, and Ian Herzog, Santa Monica, as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiffs and respondents.
We granted review to consider the Court of Appeal's reversal of a directed verdict of coverage in favor of Jack and Rita Garvey (hereafter plaintiffs). We sought to resolve some of the confusion that has arisen regarding insurance coverage under the In recent years, some courts have misinterpreted and misapplied our decisions in Sabella v. Wisler (1963) 59 Cal.2d 21, 27 Cal.Rptr. 689, 377 P.2d 889, and State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Partridge (1973) 10 Cal.3d 94, 109 Cal.Rptr. 811, 514 P.2d 123. In so doing, they have allowed coverage in first-party property damage cases under our holding in Partridge by inappropriately using the Partridge concurrent causation approach as an alternative to Sabella 's efficient proximate cause analysis. 1 This extension of the analysis in Partridge, a third-party liability case, allows coverage under a first-party property insurance policy whenever a covered peril is a concurrent proximate cause of the loss, without regard to the application of specific policy exclusion clauses. 2 Such reasoning ignores the criteria set forth in Insurance Code sections 530 and 532, 3 the relevant analysis in Sabella and the important distinction between property loss coverage under a first-party property policy and tort liability coverage under a third-party liability insurance policy. Indeed, because a covered peril usually can be asserted to exist somewhere in the chain of causation in cases involving multiple causes, applying the Partridge approach to coverage in first-party cases effectively nullifies policy exclusions in "all risk" homeowner's property loss policies, thereby essentially abrogating the limiting terms of insurance contracts in such cases. We cannot believe Partridge intended such a sweeping result in first-party property loss cases. To the contrary, as we explain below, we must put Partridge, in its proper perspective, i.e., that decision should be utilized only in liability cases in which true concurrent causes, each originating from an independent act of negligence, simultaneously join together to produce injury. Therefore, as will appear, we conclude this case should be remanded to the Court of Appeal with directions to remand to the trial court for a jury determination of causation pursuant to Sabella, supra, 59 Cal.2d 21, 27 Cal.Rptr. 689, 377 P.2d 889.
"all-risk" section of a homeowner's insurance policy when loss to an insured's property[770 P.2d 705] can be attributed to two causes, one of which is a nonexcluded peril, and the other an excluded peril.
Plaintiffs bought their house in the mid-1970's. In 1977, plaintiffs purchased from State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (hereafter defendant) an "all risk" homeowner's policy of insurance which was in effect at all times relevant. Section I of the policy in question provided coverage for "all risks of physical loss to the property covered" except as otherwise excluded or limited. Losses excluded by this portion of the policy included those "caused by, resulting from, contributed to or aggravated by any earth movement, including but not limited to earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudflow, earth sinking, rising or shifting," and losses caused "by ... settling, cracking, shrinkage, bulging or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roofs or ceilings...."
In August 1978, plaintiffs noticed that a house addition, built in the early 1960's, had begun to pull away from the main structure. They also discovered damage to a deck and garden wall. There ensued numerous phone calls, letters, meetings and investigations as plaintiffs tried to determine from defendant whether the damage was covered by their homeowner's property insurance policy.
In October 1979, after receiving from its counsel an opinion that the loss was not After refusing to sign the foregoing agreement, plaintiffs sued, claiming that although their policy excluded coverage for losses caused or aggravated by earth movement, it implicitly provided coverage for losses caused by contractor negligence because negligence was not a specifically excluded peril under the policy. Plaintiffs also argued that defendant denied their claim before adequately investigating the damage to the structure, and that subsequent investigations were undertaken merely to confirm the original denial. In addition, plaintiffs asserted, defendant's denial of coverage constituted a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violated various provisions of the Insurance Code. Plaintiffs sought as relief (i) policy benefits, (ii) general damages for economic detriment and emotional distress, and (iii) punitive damages.
[770 P.2d 706] covered, defendant notified plaintiffs by letter that the Under the agreement proposed, defendant would make the advance and file a declaratory relief action on the issue of coverage; plaintiffs would pay back the advance if the court ruled in defendant's favor, would waive "any claim of consequential or punitive damages arising out of any allegation of bad-faith, mental distress, oppression, fraud or insurance-related tort," and would not "institute any class-action against defendant on account of the facts and issues involved in this loss and claim."
Defendant rested on the 12th day of trial, and the court granted a directed verdict for plaintiffs on the coverage issue. The court informed the parties it was following the decisions in Partridge, supra, 10 Cal.3d 94, 109 Cal.Rptr. 811, 514 P.2d 123, and Sabella, supra, 59 Cal.2d 21, 27 Cal.Rptr. 689, 377 P.2d 889, and that plaintiffs were covered under the policy because negligent construction, a covered risk, was a concurrent proximate cause of the damage. Specifically, the trial court stated: The court continued,
The jury subsequently found defendant liable for $47,000 in policy benefits and general damages, and $1 million in punitive damages. The court denied defendant's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, and declined to issue a remittitur with respect to the punitive damages award. The court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a divided opinion. Before reviewing the Court of Appeal holding, and in order to provide sufficient background information that will aid in the understanding of this case, we first discuss the development of multiple and concurrent causation insurance analyses, and the important distinction between property and liability policies.
Our courts have long struggled to enunciate principles that determine whether coverage exists when excluded and covered perils interact to cause a loss. Initially, the courts attempted to reconcile section 530 ( ) with section 532 ( ).
In our 1963 Sabella decision, supra, 59...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. N. River Ins. Co.
...... is an act or omission that sets in motion a chain of events that produces" the injury]; Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 395, 402, 257 Cal.Rptr. 292, 770 P.2d 704 [in the insurance context, noting that the " ‘ "efficient" ’ " "proximate cause" among multiple cau......
-
State v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...This follows from the nature of third party liability insurance, as we later explained in Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 395, 407, 257 Cal.Rptr. 292, 770 P.2d 704: "[T]he right to coverage in the third party liability insurance context draws on traditional tort co......
-
Continental Cas. Co. v. Fibreboard Corp.
...under the policy, the burden is on the insurer to prove a claim is specifically excluded." Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 48 Cal.3d 395, 406, 257 Cal.Rptr. 292, 770 P.2d 704 (1989). There is no question that the language of the policy at issue provides for insurance of the puniti......
-
Murray v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...blanche to deny coverage in nearly all cases. A similar point was made by the Supreme Court in Garvey [v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 48 Cal.3d 395, 408, 257 Cal.Rptr. 292, 299, 770 P.2d 704, 711]. There, the court noted that the insured cannot be permitted to claim coverage merely because ......
-
Insurance Coverage Lessons From Katrina: Insurance Companies Should Be Protecting Policyholders, Not Insurance Companies
...413, 416 (Wash. 1989). 13 Murray v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 509 S.E.2d 1 (W. Va. 1998); Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 P.2d 704 (Cal. 1989). See also Western Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. v. University of N. D., 643 N.W.2d 4 (N.D. 14 Bishops, Inc. v. Penn Nat. Ins., 984 A.2d 982......
-
Investigating coverage
...425, 437-438) (1985). However, the insurer has the burden of proof on all policy exclusions. Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. , 48 Cal.3d 395, 406 (1989); Searle v. Allstate Life Ins. Co. , supra, 38 Cal.3d at 437-438; Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co., 22 Cal.3d 865, 880 (1978). Ho......
-
Insurance
...party claims are covered if an insured peril is the efficient proximate cause of the loss. Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. , 48 Cal. 3d 395, 412, 257 Cal. Rptr. 292, 302 (1989) (where third party negligence (a covered peril) was the predominating or efficient proximate cause of los......
-
Adhesion contracts don't stick in Michigan: why Rory got it right.
...Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 191 Cal. Rptr. 37, 44 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983); accord Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 P.2d 704, 711 (Cal. 1989); see also Nation v. State Farm Ins. Co., 880 P.2d 877, 891 (Okla. 1994) (Opala, J., concurring) (observing that the majority's......
-
Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 10, § 2653.2 Time Limitations
...created by Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies, 46 Cal.3d 287 (1988) and Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, 48 Cal.3d 395 (1989) which can be expected to have a substantial effect on insurer payouts, or any other change which would result in an approved rate being......