Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01054/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01054-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

R.W. Hertel & Sons, )

Inc., ) 

 )

 Plaintiff, )

 )

 )

 v. )

 )

 )

Arch Specialty Ins. Co.,) 

 )

 Defendant. )

 )

________________________)

CV 07-1054-LEW-EFB 

 

ORDER

Currently before this Court are (1) Plaintiff’s

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Defendant’s Duty

to Defend; and (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication

of Issues. Having considered all papers and arguments,

THE COURT NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:

Case 2:07-cv-01054-LEW-EFB Document 56 Filed 03/19/08 Page 1 of 4
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

 1 Cevista Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. CV

028128, California Superior Court, County of San Joaquin,

Stockton Branch.

 2 Figuerrido v. Cevista, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 025392,

California Superior Court, County of San Joaquin, Stockton

Branch.

2

As a preliminary matter, the Court overrules as

moot Defendant’s Objections filed in Plaintiff’s Motion

and in Defendant’s Motion because the Court did not

rely on the evidence objected to by Defendant.

Moreover, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Request for

Judicial Notice as to all documents. Further, the

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice as

to both documents.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not bar

Plaintiff’s claims in this action because the issue

necessarily decided in the previous suit1 is not

identical to the issue sought to be litigated in this

case. In addition, Plaintiff was and is not in privity

with a party to the previous suit.

Nevertheless, Defendant does not owe a duty to

defend Plaintiff in the Figuerrido Action2 because of

three separate and independent reasons:

(1) Defendant does not owe a duty to defend Plaintiff

because the clear language of the Policy states

that Defendant owes a duty to defend only to a

Case 2:07-cv-01054-LEW-EFB Document 56 Filed 03/19/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Named Insured, and Plaintiff is not a Named

Insured. (See the Policy in Section I: “We have

the right and duty to defend you, the Named Insured

. . . we have no duty to defend any other

insured.”); see also General Star Indem. Co. v.

Superior Court, 47 Cal. App. 4th 1586, 1590-91

(Cal. App. Ct. 1996) (insurance policy language may

limit or negate the insurer’s duty to defend). 

Plaintiff is not a “Named Insured” because the

Policy defines “Named Insured” as “the person or

organization named in Item 1 of the Declarations of

this policy,” and Plaintiff is not named in the

Declarations of the Policy.

(2) Defendant does not owe a duty to defend Plaintiff

in the Figuerrido Action because there is no

potential for coverage. There is no potential for

coverage because the Contractors Special Conditions

Endorsement has not been satisfied. 

(3) Defendant does not owe a duty to defend Plaintiff

because any possible “potential for liability turns

on resolution of a legal question.” McLaughlin v.

Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 23 Cal. App. 4th 1132,

1152 (Cal. App. Ct. 1994) (citing State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co. v. Longden, 197 Cal. App. 3d 226,

233 (Cal. App. Ct. 1987)); see also Waller v. Truck

Ins. Exch., 11 Cal. 4th 1, 26 (1995).

Case 2:07-cv-01054-LEW-EFB Document 56 Filed 03/19/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, the Court:

- DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment of Defendant’s Duty to Defend; and

- GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as

to all causes of action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW

 Senior U.S. District Judge

DATED: March 18, 2008

Case 2:07-cv-01054-LEW-EFB Document 56 Filed 03/19/08 Page 4 of 4