Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court
Decision Date | 01 February 2001 |
Docket Number | No. S084057.,S084057. |
Citation | 24 Cal.4th 945,16 P.3d 94,103 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Powerine Oil Company, Inc., et al., Real Parties in Interest. |
Rehearing Denied April 18, 2001.1
Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft, Patrick A. Cathcart, Los Angeles, William J. Baron, San Francisco, Jennifer D. McKee, Laura A. Pace, Robert J. Zapf and Jo-Ann Horn Maynard, Los Angeles, for Petitioners.
Sinnott, Dito, Moura & Puebla, Randolph P. Sinnott, Los Angeles; Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Laura A. Foggan, Daniel E. Troy, N. Christopher Hardee, Wash., DC, John Dunfee; Bien & Summers and Elliot L. Bien, San Francisco, for Insurance Environmental Litigation Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Charlston, Revich & Williams, Ira Revich, Los Angeles, and Nicholas R. Andrea
for The Home Insurance Company as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
O'Melveny & Myers, Richard B. Goetz and Lawrence M. Hadley for Century Indemnity Company as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland and Irving H. Greines, Beverly Hills, for Truck Insurance Exchange as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Isola, Bowers, David R. Isola and Aaron L. Bowers, Acampo, for Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company.
Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, Robert S. Venning, David B. Goodwin and Esta L. Brand, San Francisco, for Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company and for Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Granite Management Corporation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.
Nossaman, Gunther, Knox & Elliott, Scott P. DeVries and Elaine M. O'Neil, San Francisco, for Aerojet-General Corporation and Dover Diversified Industries, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company.
Zevnik, Horton, Guibord, McGovern, Palmer & Fognani, Mitchel Y. Horton and David S. Cox, Los Angeles, for ITT Industries, Inc., Pneumo Abex Corporation, Sunoco, Inc., and Pepsi Cola General Bottlers, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company.
Latham & Watkins, David L. Mulliken, Dorn G. Bishop, William C. Tayler, San Diego, and Jill N. Willis for Montrose Chemical Corporation of California, Navistar International Transportation Corp., Fluor Daniel, Inc., AstraZeneca, The Boeing Company, International Truck & Engine Corporation, Masco Tech, Maxwell Technologies, Inc., and Rohr, Inc., doing business as BF Goodrich Aerostructures Group as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Richard M. Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Craig C. Thompson, Acting Assistant Attorney General and Timothy R. Patterson, Deputy Attorney General for the People of the State of California ex rel. Attorney General Bill Lockyer as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company.
Troop Steuber Pasich Reddick & Tobey, Kirk A. Pasich and Catherine L. Rivard, Los Angeles, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company.
David L. Alexander, Oakland; Farella, Braun & Martel, Deborah S. Balati and Pamela H. Davis, San Francisco, for City of Oakland and Board of Port Commissioners as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company.
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, Donald W. Brown, Thomas M. Peterson and Laura J. Remington, San Francisco, for Aydin Corporation, Coltec Industries, Inc., Exxon Mobil Corporation, Fibreboard Corporation, Imperial Oil Limited, McKesson HBOC, Inc., Mascotech, Inc., Shell Oil Company and Tosco Corporation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company.
Adelson, Hess & Kelly, Randy M. Hess, Duane W. Shewaga, Campbell, and Michelle L. Fogliani for California Trustee's Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company.
Anderson Kill & Olick, Edward J. Stein, William G. Passannante and M. Christina Ricarte, New York, N.Y., for The Glidden Company as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company.
Stanzler Funderburk & Castelllon, Jordan S. Stanzler and Dennis G. Rolstad, San Francisco, for Weir Floway, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company. Munger, Tolles & Olson, Cary B. Lerman, Los Angeles; Spriggs & Hollingsworth and Marc S. Mayerson, Wash., D.C., for Aventis Cropscience USA, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company.
Irell & Manella, Los Angeles, and Thomas W. Johnson, Jr., Newport Beach, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest Powerine Oil Company.
We granted review to resolve an important issue arising under the standard comprehensive general liability insurance policy.
In one provision, the standard policy imposes on the insurer a duty to defend the insured—in typical language, it generally states that the insurer has a "duty to defend" the insured "in any suit seeking damages" for harm alleged within coverage.
In another provision, the standard policy imposes on the insurer a duty to indemnify the insured—again in typical language, it generally states that the insurer "will pay all sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages" for harm proved within coverage.
In Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 857, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 107, 959 P.2d 265 (hereafter sometimes Foster-Gardner), we addressed the question, which was of first impression in the State of California, whether the insurer's duty to defend the insured in a "suit seeking damages" was limited to a civil action prosecuted in a court. We answered in the affirmative. We went on to conclude that the duty did not extend to a proceeding conducted before an administrative agency pursuant to an environmental statute.
In this cause, we address the question, also of first impression in this state, whether the insurer's duty to indemnify the insured for "all sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages" is limited to money ordered by a court. We shall answer in the affirmative. We shall go on to conclude that the duty does not extend to any expenses required by an administrative agency pursuant to an environmental statute.
This cause arises from a petition for writ of mandate filed in the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, and subsequently assigned to Division Three thereof. The petitioners are Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, and Certain London Market Insurance Companies, hereafter collectively the London Insurers; the respondent is the Superior Court of Los Angeles County; and the real parties in interest are entities including Powerine Oil Company, Inc.
The petition for writ of mandate, as the Court of Appeal would later state, was submitted against this background:
Read in conjunction with all of its supporting papers, the petition for writ of mandate contains allegations, subsequently admitted or at least not denied, to the following effect:
Highlands Insurance Company filed a complaint and thereby initiated a civil action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County for declaratory relief against Powerine, among others. In pertinent part, it alleged, in substance, that it had issued Powerine various comprehensive general liability insurance policies; the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had instituted a proceeding against Powerine pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.) for the cleanup of a contaminated site in Monterey Park, the so-called Operating Industries, Inc., Superfund Site, and for the abatement of the contamination's effects; Powerine demanded that Highlands defend and indemnify it in the pending proceeding; Highlands undertook to defend Powerine under a reservation of rights, and continued to do so. Highlands prayed for a declaration that it did not owe Powerine any duty to defend or any duty to indemnify in the pending proceeding.
Powerine filed a cross-complaint and thereby initiated a cross-action essentially for damages and declaratory relief against the London Insurers, among others. In the operative cross-complaint, which is the second amended one, Powerine alleged, in pertinent part and in substance, that the London Insurers had issued it various insurance policies, including policy No. LAB 2579, a comprehensive general liability insurance policy for a term from May 1, 1958, to May 1, 1961; the EPA had instituted a proceeding against Powerine pursuant to CERCLA for the cleanup of the contaminated Operating Industries, Inc., Superfund Site in Monterey Park, and for the abatement of the contamination's effects, and had required it, and would continue to require...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zamora v. Sec. Indus. Specialists, Inc.
...National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089 ( Guz ); Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 945, 972, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 672, 16 P.3d 94.) In undertaking our independent review, we apply the same three-step analysis used by......
-
Dryden Oaks, LLC v. San Diego Cnty. Reg'l Airport Auth., D069161
...256, 261, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 382.)We review a summary judgment ruling de novo. ( Certain Underwriters at Lloyd 's of London v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 945, 972, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 672, 16 P.3d 94.) "In practical effect, we assume the role of a trial court and apply the same rules and stan......
-
Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution, Inc.
...an insured "lie at the core of the standard policy." Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 945, 958, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 672, 16 P.3d 94.) The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. ( Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1076......
-
Saarman Constr., Ltd. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. 15–cv–03548–JST
...to Indemnify Absent a duty to defend, Ironshore does not have a duty to indemnify. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court , 24 Cal.4th 945, 961, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 672, 16 P.3d 94 (2001). The Court accordingly grants Ironshore's motion for summary judgment with respect to ......
-
Santa Clara Valley Water District v. Century Indemnity Company
...would trigger indemnification under Century's excess policies. (See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 945, 961 [103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 672, 16 P.3d 94] (Powerine I) ['the duty to indemnify is not broad enough to extend beyond 'damages,' i.e., money ord......
-
11th Circuit To Decide Whether Construction Defect Notice Under Florida Repair Statute Is A 'Suit'
..."damages" on account of a "suit" refers to "money ordered by a court." (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court, 24 Cal. 4th 945 Altman has appealed the district court's decision. In its opening brief, Altman argues the Chapter 558 process is a civil proceeding, and ther......
-
Insurance
...and its duty to defend “lie at the core of the standard policy.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 945, 958. Unlike the obligation to indemnify, which is only determined when the insured’s underlying liability is established, the duty to defend mu......
-
Investigating coverage
...to Indemnify Before the California Supreme Court’s decision in Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s of London v. Superior Court (Powerine), 24 Cal. 4th 945 (2001), it was generally understood that third-party liability insurers had an independent duty to fund settlements of covered third-party c......
-
Chapter 5
...v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 377, 118 P.3d 589, 33 Cal. Rptr.3d 562 (2005); Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s London v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 945, 16 P.3d 94, 103 Cal. Rptr.2d 672 (2001); Ortega Rock Quarry v. Golden Eagle Insurance Corp., 141 Cal. App.4th 969, 46 Cal. Rptr.3d 517 (2006......