Appellant insurer sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, that respondent insurer had no duty to defend a party who was insured at different times by both appellant and respondent.
Nakase Law Firm explains can an employer force you to use PTO in California
Overview
Respondent insurer issued a claims-made policy to an escrow company. During the policy period, a complaint was filed against the insured. After the policy expired, appellant insurer issued a policy. During appellant’s policy period, a complaint was filed against the insured that named as defendants both plaintiffs and defendants from the first action. Respondent declined coverage in the second action, which it deemed outside the policy period. The insured filed an action against appellant and respondent and appellant cross-complained against respondent for reimbursement. The trial court granted summary judgment to respondent. On appeal, the court affirmed. A “claims made” policy limited coverage to claims made against the insured during the policy period. Appellant argued that the policy’s definition of “claim” permitted the interpretation that once a claim was made, any interrelated later claims related back to the initial claim. The court concluded that respondent had no duty to defend the insured in the second action, because to be covered by the policy, a claim, or a group or series of claims treated as a single claim, was still required to be made during the policy period.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment in appellant insurer’s action for reimbursement that respondent insurer had no duty to defend an insured. The second claim against the insured, even if related to the first claim made during respondent’s policy period, was outside respondent’s policy period, and it thus had no duty to defend the insured in that action.