Insurance Coverage: October 2012

by Low, Ball & Lynch

This past quarter brought us the long-awaited decision from the California Supreme Court on stacking of insurance policies. The Supreme Court has ruled that stacking of limits on successive policies is permitted on continuous loss cases, as long as there is no anti-stacking provision in the policy itself. Such provisions already exist in many construction related policies, and should now become more prevalent. The following are brief synopses of the Supreme Court’s decision in State of California v. Continental Ins. Co. (the stacking case) along with other noteworthy insurance coverage decisions this past quarter.

State of California v. Continental Insurance Company
(2012) ____ Cal.4th ____

The State of California sought to recover from its liability insurers the amount a federal court had ordered it to pay for the clean-up of the Stringfellow hazardous waste site. The trial involved six insurers who had issued the State an Excess Corporate General Liability Policy, covering a two or three-year policy period. This involved long term exposure through multiple policies, and as the Court noted, it is often “virtually impossible” for an insured to prove what specific damage occurred during each of the multiple consecutive policy periods. There was no dispute that all the policies were triggered. The biggest issue decided by the Supreme Court was whether the insured would be entitled to “stack” the policy limits for multiple years, or whether only one limit would be available. Here, there was no language in the policy forbidding stacking of limits. The Supreme Court repudiated the ruling of FMC Corp. v Plaisted & Companies (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1132, which had said that in this situation, the insured was entitled to one policy limit only, with each carrier being jointly and severally liable for that limit. The Supreme Court emphasized that the insured had paid premiums for each year, and was entitled to the limits from each year. 

Axis Surplus Ins. Co. v. Reinoso
(2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1214

Defendant and appellant Linda Reinoso and her husband, Edgar Reinoso, owned and managed about 15 rental properties in the City of Palmdale, including J-3 Apartments, a 48-unit residential property they purchased in 2003. They had been involved in owning rentals for over 30 years. In the five years before the suit, Edgar had been prosecuted twice for charges concerning deficiencies at other properties. While Edgar was more involved in the day-to-day management of the various properties, including J-3, Linda had paid the bills for the J-3 Apartments. In January of 2005, the tenants of J-3 Apartments brought an action alleging habitability deficiencies against the Reinosos. Their carrier, Axis Surplus, defended under a reservation of rights. The action settled for just over $3,000,000 with Axis contributing $2,162,500. Axis then brought an action to recover settlement and defense costs from its insureds. The Court of Appeal held that Linda was not covered by the Axis policy for any of the damages that were settled by Axis. First, it noted that intended, deliberate, and anticipated consequences of acts are not included within the policy. Secondly, under a subjective standard, there was sufficient evidence that Linda was aware of the conditions at the J-3 Apartments. Thus she was not an innocent insured, and that she expected the tenants to suffer injuries.

Travelers Property Cas. Co. of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., et al.
(2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969

Personal injury coverage under most CGL policies provides coverage for claims alleging injury arising out of oral or written publications that slander, libel or disparage a person’s or organization’s goods, products or services. This case considered whether the allegations of an underlying complaint had to rise to the level of trade libel to merit coverage. The Court of Appeal held that the disparagement of the plaintiff’s goods alone, without an actual false statement, was sufficient to trigger coverage. The language of the policy spoke of trade libel or disparagement, so one or the other was sufficient.

Entin v. Superior Court
(2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 770

Allen Entin was an OB/GYN physician. In 1991, he purchased a disability income policy and an “overhead expense” policy from Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company. Both policies defined the term “totally disabled” to mean “(1) [the insured is] not able to perform the substantial and material duties of [his] occupation; and [¶] (2) [the insured is] receiving care by a [p]hysician which is appropriate for the condition causing the disability.” Entin filed a claim alleging his migraine headaches rendered him incapable from performing his occupation. Provident reviewed the claim and began paying benefits. Provident had Entin examined, and came to the conclusion Entin was not disabled within the meaning of the policy. It filed a declaratory relief action. It pled that it would continue to pay benefits until the outcome of the case, and would not attempt to recoup any sums. The trial court ruled that Entin did not have a right to a trial by jury “in light of the fact that payments [under the policies] are ongoing.” The trial court ruled that the issue was not interpretation of the contract language, but instead a factual dispute over disability, and thus Entin was entitled to a right to a jury trial.

Yan Fang Du, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al.
681 F.3d 1118 (2012)

Yang Fang Du and three others were in a car struck by Allstate’s insured, Joon Hak Kim. Liability was clearly adverse to Kim. Allstate’s policy provided liability coverage of $100,000 per person and $300,000 aggregate for all persons injured. Over several months, Allstate was in contact with numerous lawyers who at different times were representing Du. No information was provided about the nature or extent of the four persons’ injuries until June of 2006, when Du’s attorney submitted a global demand of $300,000 for all four plaintiffs, indicating that Du’s bills were in excess of $108,000, and that the other three plaintiffs had medical bills from $6,600 to $13,808. The carrier indicated that it needed more information on the other three plaintiffs’ injuries to evaluate the global settlement demand, and suggested settling Du’s claim individually. The attorney rejected this suggestion, and demanded the entire $300,000 be paid. In August of 2006, the attorney rejected the offer of $100,000 individually for Du as “too little too late.”

California courts are unclear on whether an insurer may be liable for bad faith unreasonable failure to settle a claim when no demand was ever made by the plaintiff. However, here the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that under California law, an insurer has a duty to effectuate settlement where liability is reasonably clear, even in the absence of a settlement demand. Nevertheless, the Court held that the carrier had acted as quickly as it could under the circumstances here where, although liability was clear, the nature of the damages was not.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Low, Ball & Lynch | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Low, Ball & Lynch

Low, Ball & Lynch on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.