Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01488/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01488-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332in Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTURY SURETY COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv1488 JM(JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

vs. STAY

CAL-REGENT INSURANCE

SERVICES CORPORATION and

STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, INC.,

Defendants.

DefendantCal-Regent Insurance ServicesCorporation (“Cal-Regent”) moves to

stay this action pending resolution of a related arbitration on-going in Phoenix,

Arizona. Defendant State National Insurance Company, Inc. (“State National”) does

not oppose the motion. (Ct. Dkt. 34). Plaintiff Century Surety Company (“Century”)

opposes the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, the matters presented are

appropriately resolved without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the

court denies the motion to stay.

BACKGROUND

The Complaint

On June 27, 2013, Century commenced this diversity action for rescission and

declaratory relief. “Cal-Regent providesinsurance-related services and, at all relevant

times, acted as a managing general agent for State National, including with respect to

the issuance of liability insurance policies underwritten by State National and the

- 1 - 13cv1488

Case 3:13-cv-01488-JM-JMA Document 37 Filed 07/16/14 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

handling of claims arising under those policies.” (Compl. ¶6). On May 25, 2011, CalRegent submitted to Century an Application for Agents and Brokers Errors and

Omissions Insurance (the “Application”) to obtain insurance covering potential errors

or omissions arising in the course of Cal-Regent’s business as a managing general

agent. (Compl. ¶7). Based upon representations by Cal-Regent in the Application,

(Compl. Exh. B), Century issued Commercial Lines PolicyCCP 707046 (the “Policy”)

to Cal-Regent for the policy period of June 22, 2011 to June 22, 2012. (Compl. ¶10). 

One provision in the Application represented, in effect, that Cal-Regent was unaware

of any fact, circumstance, situation,incident, or allegation “whichmight afford grounds

for any claim such as would fall under the proposed insurance.” (Compl. ¶8). At the

heart of Century’s complaint is the allegation that the Application contains material

misrepresentations.

In the Complaint, Century seeks a declaration that it has no obligation to defend

or indemnify Cal-Regent in connection with State National’s indemnity claims in the

Arizona arbitration proceeding. Century also seeks to rescind the Policy based upon

the alleged misrepresentations contained in the Application.

The Underlying Claim and the Bad Faith Action

On December 30, 2010, a bad faith lawsuit was filed against State National in

the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona (the “Bad Faith Action”). The Bad

Faith Action arose out of a single-vehicle accident that occurred in Sonora, Mexico on

February 9, 2007. A passenger in the vehicle, Brian Walderson, wasseriously injured. 

Walderson and his parents (the “Waldersons”) sued the owner of the vehicle, Sullivan

Car Company, and the driver, Heath Sullivan (the “Sullivans”), for Brian’s injuries.

The Sullivans sought coverage for the claims asserted under an insurance policy

issued to Sullivan Car Company by State National through its managing general agent,

Cal-Regent. (Compl. ¶14). Notice of the Waldersons’ claim was provided to State

National, Cal-Regent, and Vista Claims Services (“Vista”), the agent handling claims

for policies issued by State National and Cal-Regent. Defendants denied coverage

- 2 - 13cv1488

Case 3:13-cv-01488-JM-JMA Document 37 Filed 07/16/14 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

because the policy purported to exclude coverage for accidents occurring outside the

United States. The following is the pertinent provision:

B. General Conditions

7. Policy Period, Coverage Territory

Under this Coverage Form, we cover:

a. “Bodily injury”, “property damage” and “losses” occurring; and

b. “Covered pollution costs or expense” arising out of “accidents” occurring

during the policy period shown in the Declarations and within the coverage

territory.

The coverage territory is:

The United States of America

(Exh.). The parties generally agree that this provision was formatted in such a manner 

that the coverage territory could be interpreted to mean that the policy actually applied

to bodily injuries occurring anywhere in the world, but not to pollution costs or

expenses which were limited to the United States. (Reply at p. 2:27-3:7; Oppo. at 1:27

- 2:2).

After State National issued a denial letter, the Sullivans demanded the $1 million

policy limit and advised State National that if the policy limits were not tendered, the

Waldersons and the Sullivans intended to settle their dispute, including a stipulated

judgment not to execute in favor of the Sullivans as permitted by Arizona state law. 

(Compl. ¶16). In response to the demand letter, Vista Claims (the third party claims

administrator hired by Cal-Rent) retained counsel who opined that the Sullivan policy

did not provide coverage for Waldersons’s claims because the accident occurred

outside the coverage territory. Cal-Regent acknowledges that it knew of the accident

before completing the Application for insurance. (Reply at p.2:27-28:7). Cal-Regent

agreed that the policy did not provide coverage for the Waldersons’ claim.

On December 29, 2009, the Sullivans stipulated to judgment in the amount of

$30 million and assigned all their rights to the Waldersons. The Waldersons agreed not

- 3 - 13cv1488

Case 3:13-cv-01488-JM-JMA Document 37 Filed 07/16/14 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to execute on the stipulated judgment and, on December 30, 2010, the Waldersons filed

the Bad Faith Action against State National and Vista Claims. Ultimately, in March

2013, State National and Vista Claims entered into a $4 million settlement with the

Waldersons. 

1

The Arbitration

In 2013, State National brought an indemnity claim against Cal-Regent in a

Phoenix arbitration proceeding. State National seeks to recover the $4 million

settlement of the Waldersons’ claim based upon the formatting issue discussed above. 

Cal-Regent tendered the claim to Century. Century continues to pay Cal-Regent’s

defense costs in the arbitration proceeding. 

DISCUSSION

Cal-Regent moves to stay this action because of its view that this case turns on

facts to be litigated in the Arizona indemnity arbitration proceeding. A stay of an

action is an extraordinary remedy. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248,

254 (1936). “To eliminate the risk of inconsistent factual determinations that could

prejudice the insured, a stay of the declaratory relief action pending resolution of the

third party suit is appropriate when the coverage question turns on facts to be litigated

in the underlying action.” Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.4th 287,

301 (1993). A stay is appropriate, for example, where a third party seeks damages on

account of the insured’s negligence and the insurer seeks declaratory relief by arguing

that the insured harmed the third party by non-insured intentional conduct. This is the

classic example where “the insurer's proof will prejudice its insured in the underlying

litigation.” Id. at 302. However, as explained by the California Supreme Court, “when

the coverage question is logically unrelated to the issues or consequence in the

underlying case, the declaratory relief action may properly proceed to judgment.”

In discussing the different types of prejudice that may arise when an insurer

On April 19, 2012, Cal-Regent first provided notice to Century of 1

circumstances that might result in a claim against Cal-Regent in connection with the

Bad Faith Action. (Compl. ¶19).

- 4 - 13cv1488

Case 3:13-cv-01488-JM-JMA Document 37 Filed 07/16/14 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

seeks declaratory relief while an indemnity action is pending, the California Court of

Appeal noted that prejudice may arise where the insurer “join[s] forces with the

plaintiffs in the underlying actions as a means to defeat coverage,” the insured is

required to litigate in two different forums, or there exists the potential for collateral

estoppel effect where a factual determination in one action will bind the parties to the

same determination in the other action. Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court,

25 Cal.App.4th 902, 909-10 (1994). The Court of Appeal highlighted that any

determination to stay an action requires an analysis of the circumstances underpinning

the third party action and the declaratory relief action. The determination must

consider basic insurance principles: “As the Supreme Court has explained, (1) since the

duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and (2) since an insurer may owe

a duty to defend in an action in which coverage is in doubt and ultimately does not

develop, it follows that (3) the duty to defend is a continuing one which arises on the

tender of defense and (4) lasts until (a) the underlying lawsuit is resolved or (b) the

coverage issue can be determined without prejudice to the insured.” Id. at 909 (quoting

Montrose, 6 Cal.4th at 295).

The court concludes that Cal-Regent fails to show cognizable prejudice and

therefore, a stay of this action is not appropriate under the circumstances. Cal-Regent

argues that the coverage issue “necessarily turn[s] on the resolution of facts in the

Phoenix Arbitration.” (Motion at p.8:12-13). Without explaining how that is so, CalRegent argues that it was not a named defendant in the Waldersons bad-faith claim

against State National, State National was “fully involved” in the decision to deny

coverage, and State National was aware of the “formatting issue” and chose to deny

coverage. According to Cal-Regent, the issue in this action and the Phoenix arbitration

is whether State National “will deny [] involvement in the Walderson coverage

determination . . . [and] knowledge of [the] formatting issue relating to the coverage

territory provision.

The court concludes that the issue in this case is relatively straight forward:

- 5 - 13cv1488

Case 3:13-cv-01488-JM-JMA Document 37 Filed 07/16/14 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

whether Cal-Regent, at the time of submitting the Application for insurance on May

25, 2011, after comprehensive inquiry, was “aware of any fact, circumstance, situation,

incident or allegation of negligence or wrongdoing, whichmight afford grounds for any

claim such as would fall under the proposed insurance.” (Compl. ¶8). Whether CalRegent was aware of a potential claim within the meaning of the Application is a

separate and distinct issue from whether State National is entitled to indemnity from

Cal-Regent for the $4 million settlement. Regardless of the court’s determinations

related to the alleged misrepresentations in the Application, the validity of the

underlying Policy is not one of those determinations. Interpretation and construction

of the Policy, and the potential formatting issue identified by the parties, is not an issue

before this court. 

In response, Cal-Regent explains that it was a program underwriter for the State

National policy, that it retained Vista Claims to administer claims under the State

National policy, and that Vista Claims acted as State National’s agent, and not as CalRegent’s agent. (Reply at p. 23-25). The court rejects these arguments as bearing on

the issue of cognizable prejudice within the meaning of Montrose. While Cal-Regent

is involved in an arbitration proceeding in Arizona and this litigation in California, the

court notes that litigation involving insurers or their agents in multiple forums is a

common occurrence and therefore fails to demonstrate cognizable prejudice. 

In sum, the court denies the motion to stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 16, 2014

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 6 - 13cv1488

Case 3:13-cv-01488-JM-JMA Document 37 Filed 07/16/14 Page 6 of 6