Opinion ID: 1373499
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Explanation of the Importance of the Certified Question

Text: The answer to the certified question will determine the outcome of Minkler's appeal of the district court's order granting Safeco's motion for summary judgment. The certified question is also one of considerable importance to insureds and insurers alike. Many homeowners and other insurance policies covering multiple insureds contain severability provisions similar to the clause at issue in this case. Because of the ubiquity of such clauses, the issue is a recurrent one and courts have reached different answers. See W. Am. Ins. Co. v. AV & S, 145 F.3d 1224, 1227-29 (10th Cir.1998) (collecting cases). Compare, e.g., Taryn E.F. by Grunewald v. Joshua M.C., 178 Wis.2d 719, 505 N.W.2d 418, 420-22 (1993) (holding that a policy exclusion applicable to any insured unambiguously barred coverage despite inclusion of severability clause), with Worcester Mut. Ins. Co. v. Marnell, 398 Mass. 240, 496 N.E.2d 158, 161 (1986) (holding that the term any insured was ambiguous in light of a severability clause and, construing the contract against the insurer, finding coverage). The California Supreme Court has never addressed this issue of exceptional importance. See generally Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Robert S., 26 Cal.4th 758, 772, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 844, 28 P.3d 889 (2001) (Baxter, J., concurring and dissenting) (Little California authority considers the effect of severability clauses on exclusionary provisions.). In his concurring opinion in Robert S., Justice Baxter wrote: [I]f the policy contains language stating the severability of the insurer's obligation, exclusionary clauses apply separately to each insured, even when language internal to the clauses themselves might suggest otherwise. Id. (emphasis in original). However, the full court held that the policy exclusion in the case was void as against public policy and did not have occasion to address the effect of the contract's severability clause. Two California Court of Appeal decisions California Casualty Insurance Co. v. Northland Insurance Co., 48 Cal. App.4th 1682, 1697, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 434 (1996) and Bjork v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 157 Cal.App.4th 1, 8-11, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 405 (2007)  have addressed the effect of a severability clause on policy exclusions, but Northland 's statement on the issue is dicta, and both the Northland and Bjork courts expressly limited their holdings to the unique facts of each case. Because the California Supreme Court has not addressed this issue, and because of the split of authority in other jurisdictions, we respectfully request that the California Supreme Court answer the certified question. If the Court, in its discretion, chooses to address the certified question, we will accept and rely on the Court's decision of the certified question in any further proceedings in this court.