![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Central District of California
February 24, 2016, Decided; February 24, 2016, Filed
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
This case asks the question of whether an employment practices liability insurance policy with an exclusion for wage and hour lawsuits should cover a run-of-the-mill wage and hour lawsuit brought against the policy holder. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the answer to this question is no.
On December 15, 2015, plaintiff E.H. Summit ("Summit" or "Plaintiff") filed a state court complaint against its insurer, Carolina Casualty Insurance Company ("CCIC" or "Defendant"). See Dkt. 1-1. On January 14, 2016, Defendant removed the case to this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Dkt. 1, 2. Plaintiff's raises two claims against Defendant: (1) breach of written contract and (2) tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Dkt. 1-1, 1.
Plaintiff alleges that CCIC conducted an inadequate coverage investigation when it received a claim for coverage pursuant to an Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") [*2] policy. Id. ¶ 11. As a result of CCIC's refusal to provide a defense or to indemnify the claim, Summit alleges it paid in excess of $210,000 in attorney fees defending itself against a wage and hour class action and ultimately agreed to a settlement of $600,000. Id. ¶¶ 12, 15.
On January 21, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Dkts. 14-15. Defendant argues that the case should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) for two reasons. First, there is an exclusion in the Policy (the "Wage and Hour Laws Exclusion") that precluded any coverage for the Higuera Class Action. Dkt. 15, 1. Second, the claims in the Higuera Class Action were not within the basic insuring provisions of the Policy in the first instance. Id. Thus, Defendant argues, it was clear there was not potential for coverage and Plaintiff cannot state a claim. Id. at 2.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195667 *; 2016 WL 7496142
E.H. Summit, Inc., v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Company
insurer, coverage, misrepresentation, wages, wage and hour law, class action, allegations, argues, duty to defend, wrongful act, violations, damages, failure to provide, hours worked, inaccurate, employees, asserts, employment practice, Defendants', sexual, cases