U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. American Employerps Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 17 August 1984 |
Citation | 205 Cal.Rptr. 460,159 Cal.App.3d 277 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE COMPANY, and First State Insurance Company, Defendants and Appellants, Michael Smith, Defendant. 3 Civ. 22696. |
Cole, Cross, Turner & Culbreth and Stephen N. Cole, Sacramento, for defendants and appellants.
Bolling, Walter & Gawthrop, Charlotte E. Hemker-Smith and George E. Murphy, Sacramento, for plaintiff and respondent.
We are here presented with a familiar script. In American Employer's Insurance Co. v. Smith (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 94, 163 Cal.Rptr. 649, we determined the trial court prejudicially erred in granting a nonsuit on a negligence cause of action on the basis the evidence showed the tortious conduct of Michael Smith, the only defendant not dismissed from that action, in setting a certain fire which caused damage was intentional. Upon reversal and remand, the trial court entered judgment against Michael Smith in the sum of $233,620.73 which represented the sums paid for fire damage to buildings and contents insured by appellants herein, American Employer's Insurance Company (American) and First State Insurance Company (First State).
Respondent herein, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF & G), the insurer of a homeowner's policy under which Michael Smith was an admitted insured, then filed the present action seeking a declaration it was not obligated to indemnify Michael Smith for the fire damages or to defend him in the prior suit. This case was submitted to the trial court on the reporter's transcript and exhibits of the former action. On the basis of this evidence, the trial court found Smith's conduct was not negligent, "but was a malicious, intentional act done with a conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others and with a preconceived design to inflict injury," and "as a proximate result of willfully, wrongfully, and maliciously igniting said fire, Smith caused the ... property insured by defendants ... to be burned and damaged." The court declared that pursuant to the provisions of Insurance Code section 533 and Civil Code section 1668, USF & G had no obligation to afford coverage to, or defend Smith.
On appeal American and First State pursue a number of contentions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the one "Intentional Tort" exclusion. On the latter issue, the exclusionary provisions of Insurance Code section 533, of Civil Code section 1668, an express exclusion clause of USF & G's policy and the public policy which negates indemnification to an insured who intentionally causes damage are equated as being indistinguishable. This sweeping assertion, like most generalizations, is faulty, and we perceive that even facially there are distinctions between the provisions of Insurance Code section 533 and the express exclusion of the insurance policy of USF & G. 1
Moreover, USF & G did not urge in the trial court that noncoverage under its policy was predicated on the express exclusion in the policy. It urged and the trial court so found that Michael Smith's arsonous conduct was willful within the meaning of Insurance Code section 533 and his insurer, USF & G, was not liable. We address this as the essential issue on this appeal.
There is no purpose in serving up a new set of facts, as they have remained constant. Accordingly, we adopt the statement of facts from our opinion in American Employers Insurance Co. v. Smith, supra, at pages 96 through 98, 163 Cal.Rptr. 649, with appropriate changes in references to the parties to reflect their status in the present appeal.
We concluded that under the circumstances of that case it is not a defense to a negligence cause of action that the evidence showed the tortious conduct of Smith was intentional or willful. (At p. 102, 163 Cal.Rptr. 649.) We stated that the only issue then before us was Smith's liability for the damages caused by the fire; we expressly refrained from considering the issue of whether or not the occurrence was covered by the insurance policy issued by plaintiff. (At pp. 101-102, 163 Cal.Rptr. 649.) That issue is now before us. 3
Insurance Code section 533 provides: "An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured; but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured, or of the insured's agents or others."
As this court held in Evans v. Pacific Indemnity Co. (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 537, 540, 122 Cal.Rptr. 680, (Nuffer v. Insurance Co. of North America (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 349, 356, 45 Cal.Rptr. 918; Maxon v. Security Ins. Co. (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 603, 615, 29 Cal.Rptr. 586.)
(Evans v. Pacific Indemnity Co., supra, 49 Cal.App.3d at pp. 541-542, 122 Cal.Rptr. 680.)
The basic premise of American and First State that section 533 and the express exclusion in USF & G's policy are identical appears to be based on a misperception of the holding of Evans, supra, that section 533 is equivalent to an exclusionary clause in the policy itself. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Worcester Ins. Co. v. Fells Acres Day School, Inc.
...the very nature of the act, harm to the injured party must have been intended." United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. American Employer's Ins. Co., 159 Cal.App.3d 277, 291 n. 9, 205 Cal.Rptr. 460 (1984), quoted in Krasnigor, supra 404 Mass. at 686 n. 7, 536 N.E.2d The proffered testimony of......
-
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
...acted either wilfully, intentionally, or maliciously for the purpose of causing injury. (See U.S Fid. & Guar. Co. v. American Employers' Insurance Co. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 277, 205 Cal.Rptr. 460.) The intent behind the act in question must involve an element of wrongfulness or misconduct. ......
-
Reagen's Vacuum Truck Service, Inc. v. Beaver Ins. Co.
...Compensation Ins. Fund, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th 78, 100, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 894.) As stated in United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. American Employers' Ins. Co. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 277, 289, 205 Cal.Rptr. 460, disapproved on other grounds in J.C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co. v. M.K., supra, 52 Cal.3d 10......
-
Fire Ins. Exchange v. Abbott
...knowing that it was wrongful."5 Unspecified section references are to the Insurance Code.6 United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. American Employer's Ins. Co. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 277, 205 Cal.Rptr. 460, seems to both reject ( id. at p. 284, 205 Cal.Rptr. 460) and embrace (id. at pp. 285-287, 2......