Opinion ID: 692766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Factual Dispute as to Waiver of Asserted Defense to

Text: Coverage 9 Lastly, Ameron contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether INA had waived its right to assert coverage defenses. Ameron claims that INA was estopped from denying coverage because INA's delay in reserving its rights lulled Ameron into believing that INA did not dispute its coverage obligations. Waiver is an affirmative defense, for which the insured bears the burden of proof. Intel Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Corp., 952 F.2d 1551, 1559 (9th Cir.1991); see also DRG/Beverly Hills, Ltd. v. Chopstix Dim Sum Cafe, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 515, 518-19 (Ct.App.1994) (holding that in a non-insurance case, the party asserting the waiver defense bears the burden of establishing the other party's intent to relinquish a known right by clear and convincing evidence), rev. denied, (Feb. 2, 1995). 10 Ameron has failed, as a matter of law, to establish the affirmative defenses of waiver or estoppel. There is no evidentiary support for a finding of waiver. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Jioras, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 840, 884 n. 7 (Ct.App.1994) (noting that [w]aiver depends solely on the intent of the waiving party, and is not established merely by evidence the insurer failed to specify the exclusion in a letter reserving rights). Moreover, Ameron's estoppel argument is foreclosed by its failure to demonstrate prejudice from INA's alleged delay in denying coverage. See id. at 845-56 (finding no detrimental reliance where '[n]o claim [was made] that if separate counsel had known of the denial of coverage ... [he] might have structured the defense differently from the defense actually structured); Alta Cal. Regional Center v. Fremont Indemnity Co., 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 849 (Ct.App.1994) (finding no waiver or estoppel where insured had not established it own detrimental reliance or misconduct by the insurer).