Qualcomm, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's

Decision Date25 March 2008
Docket NumberNo. D050433.,D050433.
Citation73 Cal.Rptr.3d 770,161 Cal.App.4th 184
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesQUALCOMM, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, Defendants and Respondents.

Heller Ehrman, David B. Goodwin, Barry S. Levin, Naomi B. Spector and Daniel S. Silverman, San Diego, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Edelman & Dicker, Daniel Tranen, Wilson Elser Moskowitz, Soltera L. Anderson and William S. Roberts, San Diego, for Defendants and Respondents.

O'ROURKE, J.

In this insurance coverage dispute, plaintiff Qualcomm, Incorporated (Qualcomm) appeals from a judgment entered after the court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Underwriters) to Qualcomm's complaint for declaratory relief and breach of contract. Underwriters, who had issued an excess director and officer insurance policy to Qualcomm, refused to pay under that policy after Qualcomm settled a coverage dispute with its primary insurer for an amount less than the primary insurer's policy limit and released its primary insurer. In its complaint, Qualcomm sought a judicial declaration that Underwriters was obligated to indemnify Qualcomm for unreimbursed litigation defense expenses and settlement costs incurred by Qualcomm in excess of the primary policy limit. In sustaining Underwriters' demurrer, the trial court ruled excess coverage had not been triggered as a matter of law and Qualcomm's causes of action failed in part under a provision requiring Qualcomm to maintain the primary policy, in view of the complaint's allegations that Qualcomm had settled with the primary insurer in exchange for a release.

On appeal, Qualcomm asks us to hold that when an insured settles with its primary insurer for an amount below the primary policy limits but absorbs the resulting gap between the settlement amount and the primary policy limit, primary coverage should be deemed exhausted and excess coverage triggered, obligating the excess insurer to provide coverage under its policy. It maintains this result does not require the excess carrier to pay any more than it would pay had the primary insurer paid its full policy limits, and furthers public policy of encouraging civil settlements. We decline to reach a broad holding based on public policy considerations, and instead conclude that the literal policy language in this case governs. Our interpretation of the excess policy compels us to conclude that Underwriters' coverage obligation did not arise because Qualcomm's pleadings establish the primary insurer neither paid the "full amount" of its liability limit nor had it become legally obligated to pay the full amount of the primary liability limit in the parties' settlement agreement. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

In May 1999, certain Qualcomm employees filed a class action lawsuit related to their asserted right to unvested company stock options. Other Qualcomm employees and former employees followed with separate lawsuits (some of which were consolidated) in part seeking accelerated vesting of stock options. With one apparent exception in which it prevailed on summary judgment, Qualcomm settled these lawsuits, incurring approximately $3.6 million in unreimbursed defense expenses for the class action and unreimbursed expenses in connection with settlement of the other litigation in an estimated amount of over $9 million.

Qualcomm tendered the above referenced litigation matters to its director and officer (D & 0) liability insurers, including National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A. (National) and Underwriters. National had issued Qualcomm a primary D & 0 insurance policy for the period of March 15, 1999, to March 15, 2000, with a liability limit of $20 million (the National policy or primary policy). The National policy insured Qualcomm and its directors and officers for a "`Loss'" including "`damages, judgments, settlements and Defense Costs,' arising from a `Claim'" including a civil lawsuit. Underwriters had issued Qualcomm a first layer excess "following form"2 D & O reimbursement policy for the same time period (the excess policy), providing $20 million in coverage for losses in excess of the underlying $20 million primary policy limit. The excess policy contains a "Maintenance of Underlying Policies" clause (the maintenance clause). Incorporating its definitions, that clause provides: "This Policy provides excess coverage only. It is a condition precedent to the coverage afforded under this Policy that [Qualcomm] maintain [the National policy] with retentions/deductibles, and limits of liability (subject to reduction or exhaustion as a result of loss payments), as set forth in Items F. and G. of the Declarations. This Policy does not provide coverage for any loss not covered by the [National policy] except and to the extent that such loss is not paid under the [National policy] solely by reason of the reduction or exhaustion of the Underlying Limit of Liability through payments of loss thereunder. In the event [National] fails to pay loss in connection with any claim as a result of the insolvency, bankruptcy or liquidation of said insurer, then those insured hereunder shall be deemed self-insured for the amount of the Limit of Liability of said insurer which is not paid as a result of such insolvency, bankruptcy or liquidation." In a "Limit of Liability" section, the excess policy also contains a clause (referred to by the parties as the exhaustion clause) providing that "Underwriters shall be liable only after the insurers under each of the Underlying Policies [the National policy] have paid or have been held liable to pay the full amount of the Underlying Limit of Liability."

In April 2004, Qualcomm, National and Underwriters participated in a mediation concerning coverage for the litigation. Qualcomm thereafter settled with National under an agreement providing it would release National from all future obligations under the National policy in exchange for National's commitment to reimburse Qualcomm for additional settlement payments and defense expenses for the nonclass action litigation, bringing National's total payment under its policy to $16 million.

In October 2006, Qualcomm sued Underwriters for breach of contract and declaratory relief. It sought compensatory damages as well as a judicial declaration that Underwriters were obligated to indemnify Qualcomm under the excess policy for more than $9 million in unreimbursed expenses Qualcomm had incurred in connection with the defense and settlement of the non-class action litigation, "provided that Qualcomm, [National], or other third parties paid at least $20 million in defense and indemnity of Qualcomm for [the litigation matters]." Qualcomm also alleged it had "paid the required premiums in full and has satisfied all other conditions to coverage, or is otherwise excused from doing so."

Underwriters demurred on grounds Qualcomm's complaint failed to state sufficient facts constituting a cause of action. They argued coverage under the excess policy had not been triggered because Qualcomm did not, and could not, meet two conditions precedent to coverage: first, under the; maintenance clause, that Qualcomm refrain from compromising the underlying National policy, and second, under the exhaustion clause, that underlying policy limits be exhausted by virtue of National having "`paid'" its $20 million policy limit or having been "`held liable'" to pay that amount. In opposition, Qualcomm argued the coverage question raised by Underwriters was squarely decided in its favor in Home Indem. Co. v. Mission Ins. Co. (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 942, 966, 60 Cal.Rptr. 544 as well as out-of-state authorities adopting the reasoning of Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. (2d Cir.1928) 23 F.2d 665 (Zeig), in which the court held primary insurance was exhausted and an excess carrier was liable for losses exceeding the actual limits of underlying primary insurance, even where the primary insurer settled for less than the actual policy limits. Qualcomm also argued Underwriters had misconstrued the maintenance clause; that the clause was ambiguous and should be construed in Qualcomm's favor to increase insurance coverage. Qualcomm maintained that while its position was supported by the excess policy's language, denying excess coverage in the circumstances presented would be contrary to public policy because such denial would work a forfeiture, provide a windfall to the excess carrier, and encourage litigation by discouraging settlements between insureds and their primary carriers.

The trial court sustained Underwriters' demurrer without leave to amend on grounds the excess policy had not been triggered. Based on the complaint's allegation that Qualcomm had settled with its primary insurer for $16 million in exchange for a release, the court ruled Qualcomm could not meet a condition' precedent of the policy to maintain the primary policy with $20 million limits of liability. The court further ruled that in the absence of facts showing the primary insurer did not pay due to insolvency, bankruptcy or liquidation, Qualcomm could not plead circumstances permitting it to be deemed self-insured. It entered judgment in Underwriters' favor. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review

"In determining whether plaintiffs properly stated a claim for relief, our standard of review is clear: `"We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed." [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • Albert v. Truck Ins. Exch.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 15, 2018
    ...to insurance contract language is not ambiguous, courts will apply that meaning"]; Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 184, 195, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 [same].) If the language of an insurance contract is ambiguous, however, " ‘in order to protect th......
  • Hopeman Bros., Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • April 2, 2018
    ...held liable to pay the full amount of its respective limits of liability."). In Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's, London, 161 Cal. App. 4th 184, 195, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (California law), the court found that the insured could not fill the gap where the ......
  • Sacred Heart Health Servs. v. MMIC Ins., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • December 13, 2021
    ...if they are settled and discharged, and the primary insurance is thereby exhausted."); Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London , 161 Cal.App.4th 184, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 770, 778 (2008) (stating that CGL policy was exhausted only after "the insurers under each of the Underlying......
  • Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Dickstein Shapiro LLP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • March 13, 2019
    ...the underlying insurance policies has actually been paid by the primary insurers. See Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London , 161 Cal. App. 4th 184, 195-96, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 (2008) ; Powerine Oil Co., Inc. v. Superior Court , 37 Cal. 4th 377, 402-03, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 562......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Second Circuit Limits Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co.
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 27, 2013
    ...Comerica v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 498 F.Supp.2d 1019 (E.D. Mich. 2007), Qualcomm v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 161 Cal.App.4th 184 (Cal. App. 2008), Citigroup v. Federal Insurance Co., 649 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2011), and JP Morgan Chase & Co. v. Indian Harbor Insura......
  • Maximus Opinion Permits Functional Exhaustion Of Underlying Insurance
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 1, 2012
    ...Am. Ins. Co., 498 F.Supp.2d 1019 (E.D. Mich. 2007), Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 161 Cal App 4th 184, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 770 (Cal. App. 2008); and Citigroup, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 649 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2011). The Comerica court discussed Zeig, but explained ......
  • Settling With Underlying Insurers For Less Than Policy Limits -- The Good, The Decent And The Ugly
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • June 16, 2015
    ...Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 498 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (E.D. Mich. 2007); Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 770 (Cal. Ct. App. There are a number of ways to deal with this situation, but policyholders must first recognize the problem. Then, they need str......
  • Exhaustion Implications For Multi-Policy Settlements
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 5, 2012
    ...its burden of proving exhaustion. Id. at *9-10. Furthermore, the court relied on Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, 161 Cal. App. 4th 184 (2008) to reject the insured's argument that it was entitled to excess coverage because it effectively "filled the gap" (i.e., paid any di......
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter Fourteen
    • United States
    • New York State Bar Association Insurance Law Practice (NY)
    • Invalid date
    ...with primary and umbrella insurers for less than full coverage limits.); Qualcomm, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 161 Cal. App. 4th 184, 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 770 (2008) (insured’s settlement with primary insurer for less than the primary insurer’s policy limit did not trigger e......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT