National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al
Filing
47
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 32 Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting Defendant's 34 Amended Motion for Summary Judgment. Court dismisses Pla's action with prejudice. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 1/22/2015. (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF HARTFORD,
15
Plaintiff,
16
17
v.
19
TRAVELERS PROPERTY
CASUALTY COMPANY OF
AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,
20
Case No. 13-cv-458 BAS (JLB)
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S AMENDED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF 34)
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
AMENDED MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF 32)
Defendants.
18
21
22
This matter is before the court on cross motions for summary judgment
23
brought by Plaintiff National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford and Defendant
24
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America.
25
below, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
26
I. BACKGROUND
For the reasons set forth
27
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on February 26, 2013 in California Superior
28
Court against Defendant, alleging that Defendant owed an equitable contribution to
–1–
13-cv-458 BAS (JLB)
1
the settlement paid and attorneys’ fees accrued by Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s
2
coverage of a personal injury. ECF 1. The facts underlying the Complaint, and the
3
First Amended Complaint filed March 6, 2013, are undisputed for purposes of the
4
summary judgment. The cross-motions instead rest on dueling interpretations of
5
contracts between the insurers and their insureds.
6
Plaintiff’s insured, Coastline, owned and operated a Wendy’s franchise in
7
Ramona, California. Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts (“SF”) No. 24, ECF 13.
8
SSA, Defendant’s insured, was a Distributor to Coastline. Id. SSA’s employee,
9
Tony Muro, injured himself when he slipped and fell while making a delivery to
10
Coastline’s Wendy’s. In November 2009, he slipped on grease or oil that Coastline
11
negligently allowed to leak out of the trash. SF No. 14. Plaintiff, as Coastline’s
12
commercial general liability insurer, defended the action and then settled it in
13
October of 2011.
14
Muro filed his suit on September 16, 2010. On December 27, 2010,
15
Coastline tendered the defense and indemnity of the action to SSA, on behalf of
16
Coastline and Plaintiff, pursuant to the Distributorship Agreement. SF No. 25.
17
Travelers reviewed the tender and the policy and determined it owed no coverage
18
because Coastline “is not named, nor does it qualify as an Additional Insured.” SF
19
No. 27. As a result, after Plaintiff settled the underlying suit, Plaintiff filed this suit
20
against Defendant alleging Plaintiff is owed an equitable contribution to the
21
indemnity and defense, pursuant to the Distributorship Agreement.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Paragraphs 10 and 19 of the Distributorship agreement are implicated in this
dispute:
[Paragraph 10: “Insurance”]—At all times during the term of this
Agreement and any renewal or extension terms, Distributor shall
maintain and keep in force and effect for Distributor, the Wendy's
System, Wendy's and its affiliates, subsidiaries, and Franchisees
within the Territory, with all collectively named as additional
insureds, comprehensive general liability and product liability
insurance coverage against all claims arising out of the performance
by Distributor of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement including,
–2–
13-cv-458 BAS (JLB)
4
but not limited to, its negligence or wrongful conduct, and against all
claims occurring as a result of the use, delivery or other utilization of
any product, or sold, delivered or transferred by Distributor pursuant
to this Agreement. Said insurance shall have minimum limits of
liability of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) per occurrence, or as
may otherwise reasonably be agreed by the parties from time to time.
5
Plaintiff contends that this agreement, between Coastline as Franchisee and SSA as
6
Distributor, requires SSA to provide “comprehensive general liability . . . coverage
7
against all claims . . . not limited to, its negligence or wrongful conduct[.]”
1
2
3
8
Defendant cites to Paragraph 19(a) of the Distributorship Agreement, which
9
states in pertinent part that “Distributor agrees to indemnify, defend, and save
10
harmless the [Franchisees] against any and all claims, losses, damages, liability, or
11
liens to the extent arising out of the negligent performance or non-performance by
12
Distributor of any of its obligations . . . ; however such indemnification shall not
13
include any loss, damage, injury, liability or claim or lien arising from injury or
14
damage to the extent caused by the negligence, wrongful acts or omissions of
15
Wendy’s or its subsidiaries, affiliates.”
16
17
Under SSA’s policy with Defendant, “Additional Insureds” and “Named
Insureds” are entitled to differing coverage:
18
Omnibus Named Insureds:
19
The Named Insured included any and all past, present or hereafter
formed or acquired subsidiary companies, firms, corporations, limited
liability corporations, joint ventures or organizations which are
owned, financially controlled, under management control; or for
which you are obligated to provide insurance. This supersedes any
reference in the policy to newly acquired organizations.
20
21
22
23
24
Travelers Ins. Policy 1010, ECF 13.
25
Additional Insured:
26
Any persons or entity with whom you have agreed in a written
contract, executed prior to loss to name as an additional insured, but
only for the limits agreed to in such contract or the limits of insurance
of this policy, whichever is less.
27
28
.
–3–
13-cv-458 BAS (JLB)
1
2
3
WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II) is amended to include as an
insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule as an
insured but only with respect to liability arising out of your acts or
omissions.
4
Travelers Ins. Policy 1066.
5
II. LEGAL STANDARD
6
Summary judgment is appropriate on “all or any part” of a claim if there is
7
an absence of a genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
8
judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
9
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (“Celotex”). A fact is material when, under the
10
governing substantive law, the fact could affect the outcome of the case. See
11
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Freeman v.
12
Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir. 1997). A dispute about a material fact is
13
genuine if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
14
nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. One of the principal purposes of
15
Rule 56 is to dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. See Celotex, 477
16
U.S. at 323–24.
17
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a
18
genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. “The burden then
19
shifts to the nonmoving party to establish, beyond the pleadings, that there is a
20
genuine issue for trial.”
21
(9th Cir. 2006) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324).
Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 987
22
“When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of
23
proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a
24
directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the
25
moving party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue
26
of fact on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transportation Brokerage Co.,
27
Inc. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoted by
28
Miller, 454 F.3d at 987).
–4–
13-cv-458 BAS (JLB)
1
“In contrast, when the non-moving party bears the burden of proving the
2
claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden by pointing out the absence
3
of evidence from the non-moving party. The moving party need not disprove the
4
other party's case.” Miller, 454 F.3d at 987 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325).
5
“Thus, ‘[s]ummary judgment for a defendant is appropriate when the plaintiff fails
6
to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
7
to[his] case, and on which [he] will bear the burden of proof at trial.’ ” Miller, 454
8
F.3d at 987 (quoting Cleveland v. Policy Management Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795,
9
805–06 (1999) (internal quotations omitted)).
10
A genuine issue at trial cannot be based on disputes over “irrelevant or
11
unnecessary facts[.]” See T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n,
12
809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Similarly, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of
13
evidence in support of the nonmoving party's position is not sufficient.” Triton
14
Energy Corp. v. Square D. Co., 68 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing
15
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252).1 The party opposing summary judgment must “by [his
16
or her] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
17
admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
18
for trial.’ ” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 56(e)). That party
19
cannot “rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his or her] pleadings.”
20
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
21
The Court is not obligated “to scour the records in search of a genuine issue
22
of triable fact.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing
23
Richards v. Combined Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1995)). “[T]he district
24
court may limit its review to the documents submitted for the purposes of summary
25
judgment and those parts of the record specifically referenced therein.” Carmen v.
26
27
28
1
See also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (if
the moving party meets this initial burden, the nonmoving party cannot defeat summary judgment
by merely demonstrating “that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts”).
–5–
13-cv-458 BAS (JLB)
1
San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir. 2001).
2
When making its determination, the Court must view all inferences drawn
3
from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See
4
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
5
“Credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of
6
legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, [when]
7
he [or she] is ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at
8
255.
9
IV. ANALYSIS
10
Equitable contribution for Muro’s negligence suit turns exclusively on the
11
interpretations of the two relevant contracts: Defendant’s contract with SSA and
12
SSA’s Distributor Agreement with Coastline. At oral argument, the parties agreed
13
that Muro’s injuries were solely caused by Coastline’s negligence. If such
14
negligence actions are covered under the terms of Defendant’s contract with SSA,
15
Defendant owes Plaintiff its equitable contribution. Therefore the threshold
16
question in this case is whether negligence actions predicated on Coastline’s acts
17
or omissions are entitled to protection under the contract terms.
18
Contracts are interpreted to give effect to the parties’ mutual intentions.
19
People ex. rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 107 Cal.App.4th 516, 524
20
(2003). Courts first look to the plain meaning of the contract, and if the urged
21
interpretation is reasonable, looks to whether that interpretation was intended by
22
the parties. 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1987) Contracts § 28,
23
summarizing Lockyer, 107 Cal.App.4th at 524.
24
In the present case, based on a reasonable reading of the language of the
25
Distributor Agreement, Coastline seems to have intended to require SSA to secure
26
general liability insurance for all causes of action, including but not limited to
27
negligence, “occurring as a result of the use, delivery or other utilization of any
28
product, or sold, delivered or transferred by Distributor pursuant to this
–6–
13-cv-458 BAS (JLB)
1
Agreement.” Distributor Agreement ¶ 10. Paragraph 19 may exclude liabilities
2
“caused by the negligence, wrongful acts or omissions of Wendy’s or its
3
subsidiaries, affiliates” from indemnification. Ultimately, however, as SSA is not a
4
party to this suit, the Court looks to Defendant’s agreement with SSA to determine
5
liability in this case. While SSA may have been obligated to provide coverage to
6
Coastline for any personal injury, including those resulting from Coastline’s
7
negligence, SSA did not obtain any such insurance from Defendant.
8
Plaintiff argues that if paragraph 10 obligates SSA to provide coverage, the
9
Omnibus Named Insured clause imputes Coastline as a Named Insured. However,
10
Coastline only qualifies as an Additional Insured, for two reasons.
11
First, Coastline bargained for, and obtained, “additional insured” coverage
12
under SSA’s policy. “At all times during the term of this Agreement and any
13
renewal or extension terms, Distributor shall maintain and keep in force and effect
14
for Distributor, the Wendy's System, Wendy's and its affiliates, subsidiaries, and
15
Franchisees within the Territory, with all collectively named as additional
16
insureds[.]” D.A. ¶ 10.
17
Second, parsing the language of the Omnibus Named Insured clause shows
18
that the words “or for which you are obligated to provide insurance” modifies “any
19
and all past, present or hereafter formed or acquired subsidiary companies, firms,
20
corporations, limited liability corporations, joint ventures or organizations[.]”
21
Travelers Policy 1010. While it is torturously constructed and includes a dependent
22
clause after a semicolon, it is clear from the language, construction, and title that
23
the intent of this omnibus provision is to serve as a catch-all for subsidiary
24
companies of the insured. Since Coastline is not a subsidiary company of SSA,
25
Coastline cannot be considered a Named Insured under this contract.
26
Defendant’s contract with SSA agrees to cover Additional Insureds, such as
27
Coastline, “only for the limits agreed to in such contract or the limits of insurance
28
of this policy, whichever is less.” Travelers Ins. Policy 1066. Because the
–7–
13-cv-458 BAS (JLB)
1
Additional Insured provision explicitly extends Additional Insured coverage “only
2
with respect to liability arising out of your acts or omissions[,]”coverage under this
3
provision cannot extend to liability resulting from Coastline’s negligence. Id.
4
Because Defendant only agreed to cover liability arising from SSA’s acts or
5
omissions and the injury in this case resulted exclusively from Coastline’s
6
negligent acts or omissions, Defendant owes no equitable contribution to the
7
defense or to indemnify Coastline. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s summary judgment
8
motion is DENIED, and Defendant’s is GRANTED.
9
V. CONCLUSION
10
11
12
13
14
15
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS the following:
1. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, DISMISSING
Plaintiff’s action with prejudice; and
2. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2015
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–8–
13-cv-458 BAS (JLB)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?