Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al v. Centex Homes

Filing 237

ORDER OVERRULLING (236 in 3:11-cv-03638-SC) Objection, filed by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Co., St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 10/8/2015. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
CONNECTICUT; and ST. PAUL FIRE
AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,

11
12
13

Plaintiffs,
v.
CENTEX HOMES; and CENTEX REAL
ESTATE CORPORATION,

14
Defendants.
15
16

) Case No. 11-CV-03638-SC
)
) ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS'
) OBJECTION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

On October 7, 2015, the Court issued an order granting
Defendants' motion for reconsideration, holding that
its April 2013 Order as to Travelers' right to control
Centex's defense in the Acupan and Conner actions was
inconsistent with a case decided by the California Court
of Appeal in May 2013, J.R. Mktg., L.L.C. v. Hartford
Cas. Ins. Co., 216 Cal. App. 4th 1444 (2013), and
affirmed in relevant part by the California Supreme Court
in August 2015, Hartford Cas. Ins. v. J.R. Mktg., 61 Cal.
4th 988 (Aug. 10, 2015)."

24
25

ECF No. 235 at 1.

Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed an objection to

26

Defendants' citation of the California Court of Appeal's decision

27

in J.R. Marketing.

28

citation is improper because the Court of Appeal's decision was not

ECF No. 236.

Plaintiffs argue that the

their filings nor the Court in its October 7, 2015 Order cited the

3

Court of Appeal decision directly.

4

affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision and reasoning on whether a

5

breach of the duty to defend causes an insurer to lose the right to

6

control the defense of an insured.

7

at 997.

8

United States District Court

certified for publication.

2

For the Northern District of California

1

on that issue was incorporated into the California Supreme Court's

9

decision.

10

However, neither the Defendants in

The California Supreme Court

Hartford Cas. Ins., 61 Cal. 4th

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal's decision and reasoning

Plaintiff's objection is OVERRULED.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: October 8, 2015

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2