Insurance Co. of the West v. Haralambos Beverage Co.
Decision Date | 03 November 1987 |
Docket Number | No. B017929,B017929 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant, and Respondent, v. HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE COMPANY; Tony Haralambos; and H.T. Haralambos, Defendants, Cross-Complainants & Appellants. |
Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel, Roy G. Weatherup, Michael J. Leahy, Mary J. Ueki, and Jose H. Garcia, Santa Monica, for plaintiff, cross-defendant and respondent.
Defendants Haralambos Beverage Company, Tony Haralambos, and H.T. Haralambos (collectively HBC), appeal from an adverse judgment on plaintiff Insurance Company of the West's (ICW) complaint for declaratory relief and equitable indemnification. Because a triable issue of material fact exists concerning ICW's right to equitable indemnification, summary judgment was improperly granted. Reversed and remanded.
HBC, a beverage distributor, contracted with W.F. Mickey Body Company, Inc. (Mickey Body), a manufacturer of beverage route trailers, for the manufacture and sale of two trailers. Although HBC had agreed to pay Mickey Body for the trailers, HBC failed to do so after receiving delivery. 1 Mickey Body filed suit against HBC and others in United States District Court, Central District of California, on January 13, 1983 (No. CV 83 0819 WMB (Bx)), for breach of contract, fraud, and wrongful possession.
HBC, through its private counsel, Brown, Reed & Gibson, tendered the defense of the Mickey Body suit to ICW, under HBC's commercial multiperil policy. On May 4, 1983, ICW's agent, Sharon Killion, orally agreed to provide a defense subject to a reservation of rights during a telephone conversation with attorney Nordin of the Brown firm.
According to Nordin's May 10, 1983 letter to Killion confirming their conversation of May 4, 1983, Killion had "advised [Nordin] that [the] defense would be under a reservation of rights and that [Killion] would forward a letter to [Nordin] setting forth the specific reasons for such a reservation." Further, HBC would be allowed to select its own counsel at ICW's expense, because ICW was defending under a reservation of rights. HBC would continue to be represented by the Brown firm, and ICW would select its own counsel to associate in the defense. 2
The promised reservation of rights letter was not sent to HBC until almost six months later, on November 2, 1983. The letter stated, in pertinent part: "A review of the litigation indicates the plaintiff [Mickey Body] is praying for recovery of money damages. Please be advised that your policy with Insurance Company of the West offers coverage for bodily injury and property damage. Bodily injury is defined as 'bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by any person which occurs during the policy period including death at any time resulting therefrom.' Property damage "Your policy of insurance contains a definition of occurrence which indicates it is 'an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.' Please be advised that many of the allegations involved in this complaint involve intentional acts and, therefore, would not be covered under the policy issued by Insurance Company of the West....
The Mickey Body action was tried on November 10 and November 23, 1983, and judgment was entered in favor of Mickey Body on March 26, 1984. The court found that Mickey Body had expected to receive $44,757.70 from HBC under the purchase agreement, and that Mickey Body had received only $3,711.06 due to HBC's breach of contract. The court awarded Mickey Body contract damages against HBC of $42,026, plus interest and costs. 3
After unsuccessfully attempting to settle its coverage disputes with HBC, ICW filed the instant action for declaratory relief, seeking a declaration that the policy does not apply to the Mickey Body action and that ICW has no duty to defend or indemnify the claim because the claim does not arise from suit against the insured for bodily injury or property damages, or from damages caused by an "occurrence." ICW also sought equitable indemnification for defense costs incurred in the Mickey Body suit.
HBC answered the complaint and cross-complained for declaratory relief, seeking a declaration that ICW had a duty to defend, indemnify, and reimburse HBC for expenses incurred in the Mickey Body suit.
ICW successfully moved for summary judgment, and was awarded defense costs incurred in the Mickey Body action of $46,953.11, and costs of suit of $215.75. Judgment was entered on November 22, 1985, and this appeal followed.
The rules governing summary judgment procedure have been often repeated:
With respect to coverage issues, HBC contends that ICW owed a duty to defend and indemnify under the policy's contractual liability coverage endorsement, and that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether ICW is estopped from asserting coverage defenses.
With respect to restitution for defense costs, HBC contends a triable issue of fact exists as to whether ICW voluntarily paid defense costs.
We find that the Mickey Body complaint contained no claim that can reasonably be construed as potentially seeking recovery for property damage or bodily injury. Hence we conclude there was no duty owed by ICW to defend HBC in that action.
(Giddings v. Industrial Indemnity Co. (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 213, 217-218, 169 Cal.Rptr. 278.)
" (St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1199, 1202, 208 Cal.Rptr. 5.)
This case, like Giddings, supra, is readily distinguishable from Gray and many of the cases following it, which have broadly interpreted the insurer's duty to defend. (See, e.g., Val's Painting & Drywall, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 576, 126 Cal.Rptr. 267.) In Val's Painting, (Giddings, supra, 112 Cal.App.3d at p. 218, 169 Cal.Rptr. 278; St. Paul Fire & Marine, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 1203, fn. 1, 208 Cal.Rptr. 5.)
Here, the policy contained the standard comprehensive general liability endorsement that the "company will pay on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stonewall Ins. Co. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates
... ... 7 Cal.App.4th 309 ... STONEWALL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Alabama Corporation, Plaintiff, Appellant and Respondent, ... (Ibid., at 754-755, 161 Cal.Rptr. 322; see also Ins. Co. of the West v. Haralambos Beverage Company (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1308, 1320, 241 ... ...
-
Aim Insurance Co. v. Culcasi
...(Fragomeno v. Insurance Co. of the West (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 822, 828, 255 Cal.Rptr. 111; Insurance Co. of the West v. Haralambos Beverage Co. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1308, 1317, 241 Cal.Rptr. 427; Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Turlock (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 988, 997-998, 216 Cal.Rptr. 7......
-
Garamendi v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co.
...Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Jioras (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1619, 1627, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 840; Insurance Co. of the West v. Haralambos Beverage Co. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1308, 1318, 241 Cal.Rptr. 427, disapproved on other grounds by Buss v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 35, 50, fn. 12, 65 Cal.......
-
J. C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co. v. M. K.
... ... 52 Cal.3d 1009, 804 P.2d 689 ... J.C. PENNEY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, ... M.K., a Minor, ... (Insurance Co. of the West v. Haralambos Beverage Co. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1308, 1319, 241 ... ...
-
Investigating coverage
...insurer reserved the right to contest its duty to defend or indemnify. Insurance Co. of the West v. Haralambos Beverage Co., (1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 1308, 241 Cal. Rptr. 427. The Haralambos decision has been criticized and effectively overturned. See Reliance Ins. Co. v. Alan (1990) 222 Cal......
-
CHAPTER 8
...Allied-Sysco Food Services, Inc. (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 1342, 1355-1356; Insurance Co. of the West v. Haralambos Beverage Co. (1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 1308, 1322-1323, 241 Cal. Rptr. 427; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Lesher (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 169, 203, 231 Cal. Rptr. 791), they are unsound fo......
-
The Y2K bug: will insurance carriers be stung by a swarm of claims?
...v. Maryland Cas. Co., 89 F.3d 618, 624-25 (9th Cir. 1996) (applying California law); Ins. Co. of the West v. Haralambos Beverage Co., 241 Cal.Rptr. 427, 430 (Cal.App. 1987); Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. City of Turlock, 216 Cal.Rptr. 796, 800 (Cal.App. (6.) Haralambos, 241 Cal.Rptr. at 430-31......
-
Insurance coverage issues arising from workplace tort claims.
...by company barred by Section 533). (48.)9 Cal.Rptr.2d 894 (Cal.App. 1992). (49.)Ins. Co. of the West v. Haralambos Beverage Co., 241 Cal.Rptr. 427 (Cal.App. (50.)Shoemaker v. Myers, 801 P.2d 1054 (Cal. 1990), aff'g in part, rev'g in part 237 Cal.Rptr. 686 (Cal.App. 1987); on remand, 4 Cal.R......