In American States Ins. Co. v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, No. D057673 (Jan. 6, 2012), the California Court of Appeal determined that American States Ins. Co. could not seek reimbursement from National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford for a claim assigned to it by its insured because: (1) its claim for equitable contribution was time barred by the two year statute of limitation, and (2) it could not allege the elements required for a subrogation claim where the insured obtained a full recovery.

Attachments:

American States Ins. Co Opinion

[ ]

78 Kb

In Kaiser Cement and Gypsum Corp. v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, No. B222310 (June 3, 2011), the California Court of Appeal (Second District) held that an excess liability policy must respond only after all primary insurance collectible by the insured has responded.  And, where a primary insurer has issued successive policies to an insured, its liability for each occurrence may be limited to a single occurrence limit if the policies so provide.  The court reversed the grant of summary adjudication for the insured as there has not yet been a determination as to exhaustion of the other primary insurers’ policies. 

Attachments:

Kaiser Cement

[ ]

1586 Kb

In Dobbas v. Vitas, No. C061494, 2011 WL 49581 (Cal. App. Jan. 7, 2011), the Third District Court of Appeal ruled that an insurer cannot sue its policyholder’s agent for “equitable subrogation” for failing to secure appropriate other insurance.  While in some cases the insurer may have a claim for equitable contribution, in this case the court found the insurer did not as it did not pay more than its fair share under pro-rata-by-limits allocation.

Attachments:

Dobbas v. Vitas

[ ]

671 Kb

In Mt. McKinley Insurance Company v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation, No. C 09-03857CW (ND Cal. Dec. 1, 2010), a Federal District Court found that the Swiss Re “excess” policies must contribute with other primary insurers because (1) polices stated they were “primary insurance, except when stated to apply in excess of… other insurance,” (2) the policies did not list any other insurance, and (3) an SIR did not constitute primary insurance.  The court also enforced the insurers’ agreement to an allocation based on “equal shares”’ instead of applying time on the risk.  The SIR was factored into the allocation by deducting the SIR before applying equal shares.

Attachments:

Mt. McKinley v. Swiss Re

[ ]

723 Kb