 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co. v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co.5/27/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC), and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA (National Union), appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant, Westchester Fire Insurance Company (Westchester) in this declaratory relief action. The parties, along with another insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale), issued successive excess liability policies to Davey Roofing (Davey) over a five-year period. When all primary insurance was exhausted, the parties and Scottsdale began defending Davey in 145 construction defect actions (underlying actions).
Before the filing of the present action, Scottsdale had filed its own declaratory relief action in the San Bernardino Superior Court (San Bernardino action). Westchester filed a cross-complaint for declaratory relief and contribution. Scottsdale, relying on language in its policy purporting to eliminate its duty to defend in the event of "other insurance affording a defense," prevailed in a determination, as to three of the underlying actions, that there was no duty to defend. The San Bernardino trial court also entered judgment against Westchester on all of the causes of action in Westchester's cross-complaint. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Westchester, relying on the decision in the San Bernardino action, and upon language in its own policy, but not identical to, the language in the Scottsdale policy, proceeded to withdraw from the defense of the 145 underlying actions. This action ensued.
This action was tried to the court based upon a statement of stipulated facts. In making its determination, the trial court relied on the decision in the San Bernardino action and, based upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel, determined that appellants' claims against Westchester were barred. As we shall explain, we conclude that the trial court inappropriately applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel against AISLIC and National Union.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The San Bernardino Action
Scottsdale, along with AISLIC and National Union, among others, had agreed to provide a defense in the underlying actions against Davey. Based upon the "other insurance" provision of its policy, Scottsdale filed suit in the San Bernardino Superior Court, seeking declaratory relief as to only three of the 145 underlying actions. (Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Superior National Insurance Co., et al., San Bernardino Superior Court case No. SCVSS 58683.)
Westchester, defendant and respondent herein, and cross-complainant in the San Bernardino action, filed a cross-complaint for declaratory relief and contribution. In its cross-complaint, Westchester alleged that it had no duty to participate in the defense of Davey in the underlying actions based upon the following language within the insuring agreement of the policy: "A. We will defend any `suit' seeking damages covered by this policy; but we may investigate, negotiate and settle any claim or suit at our discretion. [ ] . . . [ ] D. We will pay all reasonable expenses for any claim or `suit' that we defend. [ ] F. We shall not be obligated to defend, or to contribute to the defense of, any claims or portions of claims for which a duty to defend exists under any other available insurance." In the prayer for
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|