State of California v. Continental Insurance Company, et al.

by Low, Ball & Lynch

[author: David Blinn]

Insurance Coverage – Stacking of Policy Limits on Progressive & Continuous Loss
California Supreme Court (August 9, 2012)

In this decision, the California Supreme Court has ruled for the first time that in a progressive and continuous loss claim, the limits of all insurance policies issued may be stacked together and are available to pay on the loss. In so holding, the Supreme Court disapproved of FMC Corp. v. Plaisted & Companies (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1132, which had previously ruled that stacking would not be allowed.


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 an Excess Corporate General Liability Policy to the State, covering a two or three-year policy period. The trial court ruled that every policy in effect for any policy period during which the loss was occurring covered the entire loss. However, it also ruled the State could not recover more than the total policy limits for any one policy period. It further ruled that the insurers were entitled to a set-off for settlement amounts previously made by other insurers. Because the State had already recovered more in settlements than the coverage for any one policy year, a zero judgment was entered against the insurers.

The State appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed. The Court of Appeal stated that in a continuous loss case, every insurer that issued a liability policy for any period during which a continuous loss occurred was liable for the full extent of the loss up to its policy limits. The Court felt if an occurrence was continuous over multiple policy periods and the insured paid multiple premiums, it should be allowed to recover up to the combined total of the triggered limits. Otherwise, an anti-stacking rule would result in a windfall to the insurers. (See our Weekly Law Resume of February 5, 2009).

The case went up on appeal to the Supreme Court in early 2009. Oral arguments were heard on May 30, 2012, and the Court published its opinion affirming the appellate court decision on August 9, 2012.

The Court first noted that disputes like this commonly occur in the context of environmental damage and toxic exposure litigation, which involve property damage that is often termed a “long-tail” injury. This is characterized by a series of indivisible injuries attributed to continuing events without a single unambiguous cause. Significantly, the Court noted that it is often “virtually impossible” for an insured to prove what specific damage occurred during each of the multiple consecutive policy periods in a progressive property damage case. Further, until recently, traditional Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance policies have been silent as to how to deal with this type of injury.

The Court next noted that neither the State nor the insurers disputed that progressive damage to property at the Stringfellow site “occurred” during numerous policy periods. Additionally, the carriers had conceded that it was impossible in cases such as this to prove precisely what property damage occurred during any specific policy period. Hence, the fact that all policies were covering the risk at some point during the policy loss was enough to trigger the insurers’ indemnity obligations.

The Court thus concluded that the policies at issue obligated the insurers to pay all sums for property damage attributable to the Stringfellow site, up to their policy limits, if applicable, as long as some of the continuous property damage occurred while each policy was “on the loss.”

After determining that all policies were triggered, the Court addressed the stacking issue. It agreed with the Court of Appeal's criticism of FMC Corp. v. Plaisted & Companies (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1132. There, as here, the policies did not include anti-stacking provisions, so the FMC court resorted to “judicial intervention” in order to avoid stacking. The Supreme Court felt this was inappropriate, pointing out that where there is no language in the policy against stacking, and where (as here) there are no statutes against it, standard CGL policies such as these permit stacking. In so holding, the Supreme Court disapproved the FMC decision.

The Court reasoned that there was nothing unfair or unexpected in allowing stacking in a continuous long-tail loss. The “all-sums-with-stacking” rule meant that the insured had immediate access to the insurance it purchased. It did not put the insured in the position of receiving less coverage than it bought. It thus comported with the parties’ reasonable expectations, in that the insurer reasonably expects to pay for property damage occurring during a long-tail loss it covered, but only up to its policy limits; while the insured reasonably expects indemnification for the time periods in which it purchased insurance coverage.


This decision has large ramifications for insureds and insurers. Whereas previously an insured was entitled to one policy limit allocated amongst several insurers for a continuous and progressive loss, now the entire limits of each carrier are available to satisfy such a claim.

The Court did note that an insurer may avoid stacking by specifically including an “anti-stacking” provision in its policy, stating that “contracting parties can write into their policies whatever language they agree upon, including limitations on indemnity, equitable pro rata coverage allocation rules, and prohibitions on stacking.” Presumably, any policies that have not already been so revised will be revised in light of this decision. As to policies which do not have anti-stacking provisions, they are ultimately exposed in their entirety in long-tail claims such as these. .

For the complete decision see:>

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.