Okada v. MGIC Indem. Corp.
| Decision Date | 10 August 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-2501,85-2501 |
| Parties | Glenn K. OKADA, William E. Takabayashi, and Richard A. Cooke, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MGIC INDEMNITY CORP., also known as AMBAC Indemnity Corp. and WMBIC Indemnity Corp., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Wallace A. Christensen, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.
John S. Edmunds, Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Before FERGUSON, CANBY and HALL, Circuit Judges.
Defendant MGIC Indemnity Corporation ("MGIC") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs Glenn K. Okada, William E. Takabayashi, and Richard A. Cooke, Jr. ("insureds"), who were insured under a Directors and Officers Errors and Omissions policy issued by MGIC. The district court ruled that MGIC had a duty to pay the defense costs of insureds as those costs came due in lawsuits alleging losses caused by the insureds as directors of a savings and loan association ("the underlying lawsuits"); that more than one potentially covered "loss" was involved; and that MGIC acted in bad faith by refusing to pay, without condition, the insureds' defense costs in the underlying lawsuits, refusing to affirm or deny coverage of claims in the underlying lawsuits, and refusing to enter settlement negotiations in the underlying lawsuits. Okada v. MGIC Indem. Corp., 608 F.Supp. 383 (D.Hawaii 1985).
We affirm the rulings finding a duty to pay defense costs as they come due and more than one potentially covered "loss," but reverse the ruling that MGIC acted in bad faith.
Plaintiff insureds were three of the eight directors of First Savings & Loan Association of Hawaii ("First Savings"). MGIC issued a Directors and Officers Errors and Omissions insurance policy, the relevant terms of which are:
[T]he insurer agrees:
(a) With the Directors and Officers of the Association that if, during the policy period, any claim or claims are made against the Directors and Officers, individually or collectively, for a Wrongful Act, the Insurer will pay, in accordance with the terms of this policy, on behalf of the Directors and Officers or any of them, their heirs, legal representatives or assigns all Loss which the Directors and Officers or any of them shall become legally obligated to pay.
....
1. DEFINITIONS
....
(d) The term "Loss" shall mean any amount which the Directors and Officers are legally obligated to pay or for which the Association is required to indemnify the Directors or Officers, or for which the Association has, to the extent permitted by law, indemnified the Directors and Officers, for a claim or claims made against the Directors and Officers for Wrongful Acts and shall include but not be limited to damages, judgments, settlements, costs (exclusive of salaries of officers or employees), and defense of legal actions, claims or proceedings and appeals therefrom and cost of attachment or similar bonds; provided, however, such Loss shall not include fines or penalties imposed by law or matters which may be deemed uninsurable under the law pursuant to which this policy shall be construed.
....
3. EXCLUSIONS
(a) Except for Loss for which the Association is required to indemnify the Directors or Officers, or for which the Association has, to the extent permitted by law, indemnified the Directors or Officers, the Insurer shall not be liable to make any payment for Loss in connection with any claim made against the Directors or Officers:
(1) for libel or slander;
(2) based upon or attributable to their gaining in fact of any personal profit or advantage to which they were not legally entitled;
(3) for return by the Directors and Officers of any remuneration paid to the Directors and Officers without the prior approval of the governing bodies of the Association, which payment, without such previous approval, shall be held by the Courts to be in violation of law;
(4) for an accounting of profits in fact made from the purchase and sale and purchase by the Directors or Officers of securities of the Association within the meaning of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and amendments thereto or similar provisions of any state statutory law or common law;
(5) brought about or contributed to by the dishonesty of the Directors or Officers. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Directors or Officers shall be protected under the terms of this policy as to any claims upon which suit may be brought against them, by reason of any alleged dishonesty on the part of the Directors or Officers, unless a judgment or other final adjudication thereof adverse to the Directors or Officers shall establish that acts of active and deliberate dishonesty committed by the Directors or Officers with actual dishonest purpose and intent were material to the cause of action so adjudicated.
....
4. LIMITS OF LIABILITY
....
(d) Claims based on or arising out of the same act, interrelated acts, or one or more series of similar acts, of one or more of the Directors or Officers shall be considered a single Loss and the Insurer's liability shall be limited to the limit of liability stated in Clause 4(b) and 4(c). In the event that more than one Director or Officer is included in the same Loss, it shall be expressly understood that the total amount of such Loss, for the purpose of determining the aggregate limit for each such involved Director or Officer, shall be apportioned pro rata among each such involved Director or Officer unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the Director or Officer and the Insurer.
5. COSTS, CHARGES AND EXPENSES
(a) No costs, charges and expenses shall be incurred or settlements made without the Insurer's consent which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld; however, in the event such consent is given, the Insurer shall pay, subject to the provisions of Clause 4, such costs, settlements, charges and expenses.
....
(c) The Insurer may at its option and upon request, advance on behalf of the Directors or Officers, or any of them, expenses which they have incurred in connection with claims made against them, prior to disposition of such claims, provided always that in the event it is finally established the Insurer has no liability hereunder, such Directors and Officers agree to repay to the Insurer, upon demand, all monies advanced by virtue of this provision.
The policy covered each loss for up to $1 million each year for each director, with an aggregate annual limit for each director.
In 1980, First Savings became insolvent and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. ("FSLIC") took control of the institution. In 1982, First Hawaiian Bank and FSLIC, as assignees of various shareholders' direct and derivative claims, filed the underlying lawsuits in federal district court against all eight directors of First Savings. See FSLIC v. Alexander, 590 F.Supp. 834 (D. Hawaii 1984). Each director hired defense counsel in the underlying lawsuits and sought payment from MGIC for the fees incurred. MGIC agreed to pay the costs as they came due, but reserved its rights to contest coverage and to demand reimbursement if the policy did not cover the claims involved.
All eight directors accepted payments with MGIC's reservation of rights for nearly two years. After that time three of them, the insureds here, refused to accept payment with the attached reservation of rights. MGIC therefore stopped paying the defense costs of the three directors, who then filed this action in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that MGIC had a duty to pay, without condition, defense costs in the underlying litigation as those costs were incurred. The defense costs in the underlying lawsuits exceeded $1 million at the time of the district court decision.
The district court granted the insureds' motion for summary judgment. It ruled, first, that the policy was ambiguous because clause 5(c) conflicted with clause 1(d) and that the policy should be read against MGIC as the drafter of the adhesion contract. The court concluded that MGIC had a duty to pay the insureds' defense costs in the underlying action as they came due.
Second, the district court ruled that the underlying lawsuits involved separate alleged acts, each of which was a potential "loss" and could have given rise to a distinct claim. Therefore, even though the acts culminated in one result, First Savings' financial collapse, multiple potentially covered "losses" were involved. Because of the policy limits, MGIC could be liable for "multiple millions" in the underlying lawsuits.
Finally, the district court found that MGIC acted in bad faith because it "has refused to affirm or deny coverage, tender defense costs when due, or enter into settlement negotiations." MGIC timely appeals.
The district court had diversity jurisdiction over this case. 1 "A federal court applies the choice of law rules of the state in which it sits ... to determine the substantive law to apply in a diversity action." Lettieri v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 627 F.2d 930, 932 (9th Cir.1980) (citing Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 1021, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941)). Hawaii courts apply Hawaii state law when the acts covered by the policy occur in Hawaii, the insureds are Hawaii citizens, and the insurance company is not a Hawaii citizen. See, e.g., Crawford v. Ranger Ins. Co., 653 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir.1981); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 58 Hawaii 284, 568 P.2d 1185 (1977). Thus, Hawaii law governs this case.
We review de novo grants of summary judgment, First Ins. Co. v. State, 66 Hawaii 413, 416, 665 P.2d 648, 651 (1983), and contract interpretations, Hanagami v. China Airlines, Ltd., 688 P.2d 1139, 1144 (Haw...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers' Mutual Ins. Co.
... ... 225, 543 P.2d 593; Big Boy Drilling Corp. v. Rankin (1931) 213 Cal. 646, 649, 3 P.2d 13; 4 Witkin, Cal.Procedure ... Similarly, in Home Indem. Co. v. City of Mobile (11th Cir.1984) 749 F.2d 659, more than 200 claims ... Amer. Cas. Co. of Reading (9th Cir.1989) 873 F.2d 229; Okada v. MGIC Indem. Corp. (9th Cir.1986) 823 F.2d 276; Pioneer Nat. Title ... ...
-
FMC Corp. v. Plaisted and Companies
... ... 1107, fn. 10, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 508; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Indem. Co. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 628, 632, 96 Cal.Rptr. 191; Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Liberty Mutual ... (Cf. Gon v. First State Ins. Co. (9th Cir.1989) 871 F.2d 863, 868; Okada v. MGIC Indem. Corp. (9th Cir.1986) 823 F.2d 276, 280.) ... [61 Cal.App.4th ... ...
-
Xebec Development Partners, Ltd. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
... ... Co. v. Stites Prof. Law Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1718, 1727, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 570; cf. also Helfand ... (Cf. Okada v. MGIC Indem. Corp. (9th Cir.1986) 823 F.2d 276, 280; Mt. Hawley Ins ... ...
-
In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative
...State Ins. Co., 871 F.2d 863, 868 (9th Cir.1989); Little v. MGIC Indem. Corp., 836 F.2d 789, 793 (3d Cir.1987); Okada v. MGIC Indem. Corp., 823 F.2d 276, 280 (9th Cir.1986); McCuen v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa., 946 F.2d 1401, 1407 (8th Cir.1991); FDIC v. Booth, 824 F.Supp. 76, 8......
-
Investigating coverage
...of coverage cannot defeat that duty. See Gon v. First State Ins. Co. , 871 F.2d 863 (9th Cir. 1989); Okada v. MGIC Indem. Corp. , 823 F.2d 276 (9th Cir. 1987). A number of other jurisdictions have adopted the California rule. See e.g., Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co., 36......
-
Chapter 9
...946 F.2d 1401 (8th Cir. 1991). Ninth Circuit: In re Mila, Inc., 423 B.R. 537 (Bankr. App. 9th Cir. 2010); Okada v. MGIC Indemnity Corp., 823 F.2d 276 (9th Cir. 1986). But see: Second Circuit: Board of Education, Yonkers City School District v. CNA Insurance Co., 647 F. Supp. 1495 (S.D.N.Y. ......
-
Chapter Thirty-Two
...as incurred, subject to possible recoupment when the insured’s liabilities are determined).[4537] . See, e.g., Okada v. MGIC Indem. Corp., 823 F.2d 276 (9th Cir. 1986) (finding that traditional D&O liability insurance policies implicitly require contemporaneous payment of defense costs and,......
-
CHAPTER 10 Directors and Officers Liability and Professional Liability Insurance
...946 F.2d 1401 (8th Cir. 1991). Ninth Circuit: In re Mila, Inc., 423 B.R. 537 (Bankr. App. 9th Cir. 2010); Okada v. MGIC Indemnity Corp., 823 F.2d 276 (9th Cir. 1986). But see: Second Circuit: Board of Education, Yonkers City School District v. CNA Insurance Co., 647 F. Supp. 1495 (S.D.N.Y. ......