Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff bought the property in 2007. The last tenants moved out in 2010. Gas and electric utilities were turned off. In 2011, Plaintiff submitted a claim to Fire Insurance Exchange for a fire at the property. Exchange retained a fire investigator, who reported, “it appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant. Signs of possible habitation were present and the relatively isolated location would permit this. … firewood … and the mattress next to the large hole in the floor also supports this theory.” The property did not have a fireplace. The claims adjuster concluded “Likely transient in house and warming fire got out of hand.” The policy did not “cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days just before the loss.” Vandalism is not defined in the policy. After denial of the claim, Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract and insurance bad faith. The trial court granted Exchange summary adjudication. The court of appeal reversed, finding that the exclusion did not apply. View "Ong v. Fire Ins. Exch." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Ronald Lee Cline was severely injured when his motorcycle collided with a turning car driven by a teenager with a provisional license. He settled with the driver and the driver’s parents for their $100,000 insurance policy limit. Cline executed a release that released the driver and his parents “and any other person, corporation, association, or partnership responsible in any manner or degree” for the accident. Cline subsequently sued defendant Berniece Delores Homuth, the driver’s grandmother and the sole adult in the car with him at the time of the collision, for negligent supervision. Homuth raised the release as an affirmative defense. She moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied the motion. A court trial followed, centering on the validity of the release and whether Homuth was an intended third party beneficiary of the release. Cline appealed the judgment in favor of Homuth, arguing the extrinsic evidence demonstrated that Homuth was not an intended beneficiary of the release. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that Cline failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter Homuth’s showing that she was an intended beneficiary of the release. View "Cline v. Homuth" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was section 1571, subdivision (a) of the Unclaimed Property Law (UPL): "The [State] Controller may at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice examine the records of any [entity] if the Controller has reason to believe that the [entity] is a holder [of property] who has failed to report property that should have been reported pursuant to [the UPL]." Pursuant to this section, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiff, the State Controller (the Controller), to examine the records of defendant American National Insurance Company, a life insurance company. American National appealed, contending that the trial court abused its discretion by ignoring the irreparable injury American National would suffer from a preliminary injunction that granted the Controller the ultimate relief the Controller sought in its lawsuit; in short, says American National, the trial court's decision deprived it of an opportunity to defend itself on the merits. The Court of Appeal essentially agreed: (1) the trial court erred in granting the preliminary injunction because the court did so without a trial on the merits; (2) the standard of "reason to believe" in section 1571(a) meant specific articulable facts that would justify a belief by a reasonable person, knowledgeable in the field of unclaimed property, that an entity was not reporting property as the UPL requires (and one way in which this standard can be met was if the suspected holder of unreported property has been chosen for record examination pursuant to a general administrative plan to enforce the UPL that is based on specific neutral sources); and (3) that if the Controller proved, at trial on the merits, the significant facts underlying its preliminary injunction request, the Controller will have met this "reason to believe" standard with respect to examining the records of American National's in-force policies. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal reversed the preliminary injunction order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Yee v. American National Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Buckminster Fuller, “Bucky,” a designer, author, and inventor, well known for popularizing the geodesic dome, died in 1983. Beginning around 2009, Maxfield manufactured and distributed products under the Buckyball and related trademarks. According to its press release, Buckyballs, “the world’s best-selling desktoy,” were “inspired and named after famous … inventor, R. Buckminster Fuller.” Buckyballs are round magnets packaged in a cube shape, which can be formed into various shapes. The Big Book of Bucky, which provides instructions, states: Buckyballs were named for Buckminster Fuller. Fuller’s Estate sued, alleging: unfair competition, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) (Lanham Act); invasion of privacy (appropriation of name and likeness); unauthorized use of name and likeness, Cal. Civil Code 3344.1; and violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code 17200. Alterra had issued an insurance policy to Maxfield, effective June 2010. Alterra agreed to defend under a reservation of rights, then sought a declaration that Alterra’s policy did not provide coverage. The Estate agreed to be bound by the outcome in return for being dismissed. Because of Maxfield’s stipulation to the allegations in the coverage action and acting without leave, the Estate later responded to Alterra’s complaint. The court of appeal affirmed a holding that Alterra had no duty to defend and no duty to indemnify, based on the “intellectual property” exclusion. View "Alterra Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. v. Estate of Buckminster Fuller" on Justia Law

In 2007, Jessica Gonzalez alleged she was sexually assaulted by Rebagliati and nine other members of the De Anza College baseball team. A year later, Gonzalez filed a civil lawsuit against her purported assailants. Rebagliati sought insurance coverage for his defense through his parents’ homeowner’s and personal umbrella policies, issued by Fire and Truck. Both companies denied coverage. Eventually, Rebagliati settled with Gonzalez, assigning Gonzalez his rights against Fire and Truck. Gonzalez sued the insurers for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract and sought recovery of judgment pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580. Her underlying allegations included accidental bodily injury, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and slander. Fire and Truck argued they had not owed Rebagliati a duty to defend. The trial court granted the insurers summary judgment. The court of appeal reversed in part. While none of Gonzalez’s claims can be construed to allege an accidental occurrence triggering coverage under the Fire policy, Truck’s umbrella policy is broadly worded and does not require an “accident” for personal injury coverage. View "Gonzalez v. Fire Ins. Exchange" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Windsor Food Quality Company, Ltd. manufactured Jose Ole frozen food products, using ground beef supplied by Westland/Hallmark Meat Company. In 2008, after a voluntary United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recall of Westland beef, Windsor made a claim under its Contamination Products Insurance policy issued by defendants-respondents QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited and Underwriters of Lloyds, London. After Lloyds denied coverage on various grounds, Windsor sued for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court granted Lloyds's summary judgment motion, finding no triable issues of material fact and no coverage. Windsor appealed. Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that Windsor could not claim coverage for the recall of Westland's ground beef. The Court agreed with the trial court there were no disputed material facts and no bad faith by Lloyds. View "Windsor Food Quality v. Underwriters of Lloyds etc." on Justia Law

Daer filed a personal injury suit, alleging material and design defects in a tire manufactured by Yokohama and sold by Costco. Costco settled for $5.5 million and Yokohama for $1.1 million. National, as excess insurer of Costco, sued Yokohama and its insurers (Tokio) to recover the costs of defending plus money paid on behalf of Costco to settle that lawsuit. National, as subrogee of Costco, sought recovery based on an express indemnity provision in the supplier agreement between Costco and Yokohama, and alleged breach of Yokohama’s contractual insurance obligations. It sued Tokio for indemnity and contribution. The court ruled in limine that National’s proof of a tire defect would be limited to the opinions of Daer’s expert in the underlying case. After National made its opening statement in a proceeding to determine whether a tire defect was a cause of Daer’s accident, the court dismissed the express indemnity claim. Having determined that the tire was not defective, the court granted summary adjudication as to claims based on refusal to defend and Yokohama’s breach of insurance obligations. The court awarded Yokohama $863,706.75 in fees as the prevailing party on the indemnity claim. The court of appeal reversed in part, holding that the court erred in excluding relevant, material expert evidence on a matter properly subject to expert opinion. View "Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Ins. Co." on Justia Law

A California resident owned an apartment building in Arkansas that was insured by a Michigan insurance company under a policy the owner obtained through an insurance agent in Arkansas. That policy included commercial property coverage for the Arkansas apartment building and commercial general liability coverage for the owner's property ownership business, which he operated from California. Other than writing this policy, the insurer did no business in California. Both the commercial property coverage and the commercial general liability coverage in the policy covered some risks, losses, or damages that could have arisen in California, but the dispute at issue here arose out of two fires that damaged the building in Arkansas. Initially, the insurer agreed to treat the two fires as separate losses but later reversed its position and took the position that both incidents were subject to only a single policy limit payment. As a result, the owner sued the insurer in a California state court for breach of contract and bad faith. The issue presented for the Court of Appeal's review was, under these circumstances, did the insurer have sufficient minimum contacts with California to allow the state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the company in this action? The Court concluded the answer was "no." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's order granting the insurance company's motion to quash the service of summons. View "Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co." on Justia Law

McMillin was general contractor and B&B Framing was a subcontractor in construction contracts for Temecula residential real estate development projects. ASIC issued B&B's commercial general liability insurance. Homeowners sued, alleging construction defects in their residences (Baker litigation). McMillin tendered the defense to ASIC, contending it was an additional insured. ASIC denied the tender. Later, McMillin-related entities (not McMillin) sued ASIC and other insurers, alleging that each was an insurer to subcontractors on the projects, that each was an additional insured under each policy, that each insurer owed each plaintiff a duty to defend the litigation, and that, by denying defense of the litigation each breached a contract of insurance and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Pretrial rulings resulted in agreement that, although ASIC had breached its duty to defend, the settlement proceeds ($690,154) would be applied as an offset to McMillin's Baker fees ($309,957), so that McMillin could not prove any contract damages, and without contract damages, McMillin could not maintain a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parties stipulated to judgment in favor of ASIC. The court of appeal dismissed the appeal as to all parties other than McMillin and ASIC and reversed View "McMillin Co., LLC v. Am.. Safety Indem. Co." on Justia Law

Cross-defendant Michael Tope appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of First American Title Insurance Company in a cross-action to recover money under a title insurance policy after default on a real estate loan to purchase and rehabilitate a home. The property was subject to a notice of abatement action issued by San Joaquin County requiring repair of defects in the rehabilitation of the residence. The subject of the suit was that First American allegedly breached the title insurance policy by failing to provide coverage for the notice of abatement action. Plaintiffs, investors in a real estate loan, sued defendants and cross-complainants Stockton Mortgage Real Estate Loan Servicing Corporation (SMRELS), Stockton Mortgage, Inc., Stockton Management & Development, Inc., and Ross Cardinalli Jr. (collectively cross-complainants) for damages arising from cross-complainants' alleged failure to follow up on the status of the release of a notice of abatement action. Cross-complainants, in turn, initiated this suit against First American, Alliance Title Company, and two of Alliance's employees for damages, indemnity, and declaratory relief arising out of First American's refusal to provide coverage under the title insurance policy, and Alliance's alleged representation, on behalf of First American, that it would obtain a release of the notice of abatement action prior to the close of escrow. First American moved for summary judgment mainly on grounds that the notice of abatement action was not covered under the title insurance policy, cross-complainants were not insured under the title insurance policy, and the preliminary title report relied on by cross-complainants was not a contract. The trial court granted First American's motion and entered summary judgment in its favor. Cross-complainants appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. View "Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope" on Justia Law