Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division One
July 16, 2003, Filed
[**19] MARCHIANO, P. J.—Hartford Casualty Insurance Company (Hartford) appeals from a summary judgment in this declaratory relief action against Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers). The parties ask us to resolve issues involving the effect of certain lease provisions on coverage, the scope of coverage for additional insureds under the tenant’s policy, the relationship of other insurance clauses, and the equitable considerations of competing other insurance clauses. We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the landlord was an additional insured under the tenant’s Hartford policy and that Hartford’s coverage was not limited to liability directly caused by the tenant, Hartford’s insured. We reject Hartford’s argument that the presumption [***2] pertaining to settlement of an underlying action set forth in Peter Culley & Associates v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1484 [13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 624] (Peter Culley) establishes a lack of coverage. Based on the equitable considerations involving the facts of this case and the policy language, we also reject Hartford’s attack on the trial court’s determination that the Travelers policy for the landlord was excess. We, therefore, affirm the judgment.
On Friday, June 18, 1999, Andrew Daher, an employee of Cornerstone Research, Inc. (Cornerstone), was working late at night at Cornerstone’s offices after normal business hours. Cornerstone leased its office space from MPOC Investors, LLC (MPOC). While on a third floor exterior deck at the Cornerstone offices, Daher [**20] tripped or somehow fell from the deck to a concrete driveway below, resulting in his death. On May 24, 2000, Daher’s parents filed an action against MPOC alleging causes of action for premises liability and negligence per se. (Daher et al v. MPOC Investors, LLC, et al., San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 413069 (Daher action).)
Travelers, MPOC’s insurer, retained Attorney Robert [***3] Ford and initially assumed the defense of the Daher action. On October 31, 2000, Travelers tendered the defense of the Daher action to Hartford, pursuant to the additional insureds clause in Hartford’s policy issued to Cornerstone. Hartford accepted, with a reservation of rights. Attorney Ford continued to defend the action at Hartford’s request.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
110 Cal. App. 4th 710 *; 2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 18 **; 2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1070 ***; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6335; 2003 Daily Journal DAR 7912
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.
Subsequent History: Review denied by, Request denied by Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2003 Cal. LEXIS 7793 (Cal., Oct. 15, 2003)
Prior History: [***1] Superior Court of San Francisco County, No. 316849, James J. McBride, Judge.
coverage, insured, additional insured, lease, settlement, endorsement, contractor, policies, landlord, trial court, equitable, insurance policy, facilities, indemnity, premises, clauses, terms, tenant, argues, cases, deck, balcony, parties, policy language, employees, warnings, courts, rights, insurance clause, reimbursement
Insurance Law, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Policy Interpretation, Plain Language, General Overview, Ambiguous Terms, Civil Procedure, Pleading & Practice, Pleadings, Rule Application & Interpretation, Torts, Premises & Property Liability, Lessees & Lessors, Appeals, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Coinsurance, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Preliminary Considerations, Equity, Multiple Defendants, Contribution