Defendant insurer appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), that awarded damages to plaintiff insured for breach of a liability insurance policy, contending the trial court erred in finding defendant provided coverage for an accident that resulted from plaintiff’s sole negligence, and if any case defendant had fulfilled its contractual duties by paying its policy limit in settlement for a co-insured.
Table of Contents
Overview
Plaintiff insured had entered into a construction contract with the co-insured which required the co-insured to defend and indemnify plaintiff for claims, liabilities or expenses on account of personal injury or property loss arising out of the co-insured’s or its subcontractors’ work, but excepting when the injury or damage was caused by the sole negligence of a party otherwise indemnified such as plaintiff in this case. An individual injured because of plaintiff’s negligence brought an action against plaintiff and the co-insured. Defendant refused to pay on behalf of plaintiff. The trial court awarded plaintiff damages for defendant’s breach of the liability insurance policy. Defendant appealed contending it did not provide coverage for an accident that resulted from plaintiff’s sole negligence, and in any case it had fulfilled its contractual duties by paying its policy limit in settlement for the co-insured. The court concluded that the contract required the co-insured to provide insurance coverage for plaintiff, including its sole negligence. Defendant was not entitled to pick and choose between its two insureds in its payment of benefits. The court affirmed. A class action lawyer representing a litigant file notice of appearance during trial.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment below in favor of plaintiff insured on the grounds that plaintiff was an insured under defendant’s policy, and defendant was not entitled to pick and choose between its two insureds in its payment of benefits. Defendant’s disbursement of its entire policy limits to indemnify the co-insured did not discharge defendant’s policy obligations to plaintiff.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-Summary judgment in favor of a hedge fund administrator in investors’ breach of contract action was proper where the undisputed material facts established that the administrator did not breach the parties’ fund administration agreement, particularly because the administrator’s contractual obligation to calculate and disseminate net asset values of the fund was excused by the investors’ failure to perform a condition precedent, and because the administrator could not breach the agreement by complying with the investors’ own directions to not respond to investor inquiries about the fund; [2]-The trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to the administrator because the contractual language relied upon was a third party indemnity provision that did not create a right to prevailing party attorney fees in litigation between the parties to the contract.
Outcome
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions.
