Basalite Concrete Products, LLC et al v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 10 defendants' Motion to Dismiss, signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 2/12/13. Plaintiffs have 20 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint, if they can do so consistent with this Order. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
----oo0oo---10
11
12

BASALITE CONCRETE PRODUCTS,
LLC, and PACIFIC COAST
BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC.,

NO. CIV. 2:12-02814 WBS EFB

13

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiffs,

14
v.
15
16
17
18

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.,
and CHARTIS SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
/

19
20
21

----oo0oo---Plaintiffs Basalite Concrete Products, LLC and Pacific

22

Coast Building Products, Inc. brought suit against defendants

23

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA and

24

Chartis Specialty Insurance Company alleging breach of the duty

25

to defend in an underlying lawsuit brought by Keystone Retaining

26

Wall Systems against plaintiffs (the “Keystone Matter”).

27

Defendants move to dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil

28

Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
1

1

can be granted.

2

Under California law, a “‘liability insurer owes a

3

broad duty to defend its insured against claims that create a

4

potential for indemnity . . . . [T]he carrier must defend a suit

5

which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the

6

policy.’”

7

1267 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Montrose Chem. Corp. of Cal. v.

8

Superior Court, 6 Cal. 4th 287, 295 (1993)) (alterations in

9

original).

Hudson Ins. Co. v. Colony Ins. Co., 624 F.3d 1264,

The duty to defend, however, is not unlimited, but

10

rather “is measured by the nature and kinds of risks covered by

11

the policy.”

12

(1993).

13

Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 1, 19

Here, the policies issued by defendants (“Policies”)

14

provide that defendants will defend the insured against any suits

15

seeking damages for “personal or advertising injury.”

16

Ex. A at 7-8, Ex. B at 14.)

17

defined, in relevant part, as “the use of another’s advertising

18

idea in [the insured’s] advertisement,” or “infringing upon

19

another’s copyright, trade dress, or slogan in [the insured’s]

20

advertisement.”

21

added).

22

broadcast or published to the general public or a specific market

23

segment about [the insured’s] goods, products, or services for

24

the purpose of attracting customers or supporters.”

25

at 35, Ex. B at 11.)

26

(Compl.

“Personal or advertising injury” is

(Id. Ex. A. at 41, Ex. B at 13) (emphasis

“Advertisement” is defined as “a notice that is

(Id. Ex. A

In their Complaint, plaintiffs do not adequately allege

27

that the pleadings in the underlying Keystone Matter included

28

allegations relating to advertisements.
2

Along with their

1

opposition brief, plaintiffs submitted materials containing

2

Keystone’s slogans and copyrights which plaintiffs supposedly

3

distributed after a licensing agreement between plaintiffs and

4

Keystone ended.

5

Plaintiffs argue that these materials show that the facts

6

underlying the Keystone Matter could have raised potential claims

7

for copyright and slogan infringement in an advertisement.

8

(Pls.’ Opp. at 15, 17, 19 (Docket No. 16).)

9

must furnish a defense when it learns of facts from any source

10

that create the potential of liability under its policy,” CNA

11

Cas. of Cal. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 176 Cal. App. 3d 598, 606 (1st

12

Dist. 1986), plaintiffs do not allege that when tendering their

13

defense they ever submitted these materials to defendants, or

14

that defendants had learned of such materials from any other

15

source.

16

these materials at the time of tender.

17

(Caufield Decl. Exs. A-C (Docket No. 17).)

While an “insurer

Plaintiffs thus fail to allege how defendants knew of

Judged by the standard of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

18

662 (2009) the Complaint does not allege a plausible basis to

19

conclude that defendants had a duty to defend based on a

20

potential claim for personal or advertising injury.

21

The Policies also provide that defendants will defend

22

the insured against any suit seeking damages for “property

23

damage.”

24

defined as “physical injury to tangible property” or “loss of use

25

of tangible property that is not physically injured.”

26

at 42, Ex. B at 13.)

27

caused by an “occurrence,” which is defined as an “accident,

28

including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the

(Compl. Ex. A at 1, Ex. B at 1.)

“Property damage” is

(Id. Ex. A

The property damage, however, must be

3

1

same general harmful conditions.”

2

13.)

3

(Id. Ex. A at 40, Ex. B at

Here, plaintiffs fail to allege how the underlying

4

Keystone Matter involved property damage due to an occurrence.

5

If any facts, even though absent from the pleadings in the

6

Keystone Matter, could have givne rise to a potential claim for

7

property damage, plaintiffs fail to allege how defendants knew of

8

those facts at the time plaintiffs tendered a defense.

9

Complaint therefore does not sufficiently allege that defendants

The

10

had a duty to defend based on a potential claim for property

11

damage.

12

Accordingly, since plaintiffs fail to adequately allege

13

defendants’ duty to defend in the Keystone Matter, plaintiffs’

14

claim for declaratory relief will be dismissed.

15

because no duty to defend under the Policies has been pled,

16

plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and bad faith breach of

17

the covenant of good faith and fair dealing will also be

18

dismissed.

19

1489, 1496 (2d Dist. 1997).

20
21

Furthermore,

See Rosen v. Nations Title Ins. Co., 56 Cal. App. 4th

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to
dismiss be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

22

Plaintiffs have twenty days from the date of this Order

23

to file an amended complaint, if they can do so consistent with

24

this Order.

25

DATED:

February 12, 2013

26
27
28
4