Opinion ID: 1953501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the contentions and the issues presented

Text: On this appeal, AT & T claims that the Superior Court erred as a matter of law in holding that the complaint failed to allege a cognizable claim that: (1) the At Home Directors had suffered a Loss that was covered under the D & O policies, and (2) AT & T was equitably subrogated to the claims of the At Home Directors. Those claims generate the two issues presented on this appeal. Because the dispute involves the Superior Court's grant of a motion to dismiss and its interpretation of insurance policy language, our review is de novo; [8] requiring us to determine whether the trial court erred in formulating or applying legal precepts. [9] Our analysis begins with the question of whether the At Home Directors suffered a Loss that triggered coverage under the D & O policies. We conclude that the Directors did suffer a covered Loss, and that AT & T, as those Directors' assignee, was entitled to enforce the Directors' contract claims against the D & O insurers. We then consider the second issue whether AT & T was equitably subrogated to the claims of the At Home Directors and conclude that AT & T was equitably subrogated. All parties agree that these issues are governed by California law.