 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Amerifloor Technical2/25/2003
ndants to insure those sums." (Bullock, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1448-1449.)
We agree with the Bullock rationale and conclude it is controlling here. The civil penalties here, like the civil penalties in Bullock, are punitive or coercive in nature rather than tethered to compensating for injuries suffered as a result of Amerifloor's conduct. For this reason, Amerifloor's attempt to equate the penalties here to the mitigation costs that AIU found qualified as damages is unpersuasive. The core rationale of AIU was that coverage existed when the government seeks to compel the insured to pay or incur costs that served the same function as traditional damages because tied to compensation for or to alleviate harm caused by past conduct. However, AIU explicitly withheld coverage for prophylactic costs incurred to pay for measures taken in advance of any release of hazardous waste. (AIU, supra, 51 Cal.3d at pp. 832-833.) Although the DOSH penalties here were for past misconduct, they were not imposed as compensation for the harm caused by the past conduct.
The DOSH proceeding sought only penalties and did not have the potential for an award that would include damages within the meaning of the CGL. Travelers therefore had no duty to defend or to indemnify, and summary judgment was properly entered on Amerifloor's claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant. (Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1153.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
McCONNELL, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|