Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Volume32013verdictgreensheetsiiithedefendantinsuredslackofassetstheinsurersearlierfailuretonegotiateinresponsetoattemptstosettlewithinpolicylimitssubjectedtheinsurertoliabilityonitspolicyforamountsinexcessofthelimits.eCourtofAppealSecondDist.Div.Eightheldthetrialcourtproperlyfoundthesection998oertobereasonableandthereforevalidtakingintoaccountthepotentialthattheinsurermightbeliableforanexcessjudgmentwhenevaluatingwhetheraCodeofCivilProcedureSec.998oerwasreasonable.Defendantsmayproperlyseekremovalbasedonallegationsinplaintiffscomplaintthattheirclaimssharecommonissuesbutsubsequentlyarguethatplaintiffsdonotactuallydemonstratethecommonalityofissuesrequiredtojoinplaintiffsunderthefederalrules.Visendiv.BankofAmericaN.A.9thCir.2013733F.3d863.Agroupof137plaintisledasinglestate-courtcomplaintstatingPlaintisandeachofthemdemandajurytrial.DefendantsremovedthecasetofederalcourtundertheClassActionFairnessActCAFAandthenmovedtodismisstheactiononthegroundthatplaintisclaimsweremisjoinedunderFederalRulesofCivilProcedure20abecausetheylackcommonality.etrialcourtaccuseddefendantsofgamesmanshipandbadfaithfortakingwhatitconsideredinconsistentpositionsdefendantsobtainedCAFAremovalbyshowingthatclaimsof100ormorepersonsareproposedtobetriedjointlyonthegroundthatplaintisclaimsinvolvecommonquestionsoflaworfact28U.S.C.1332d11BiandthendefendantssubsequentlyarguedthatplaintisclaimsweremisjoinedbecausetheydidnotraisecommonissuesoflaworfactFed.R.Civ.P.20a.eNinthCircuitreversedholdingdefendantsactedproperly.ecourtheldthatCAFAremovabilityisdeterminedatthetimeremovalissoughtandonceplaintisledasinglecomplaintwithover100plaintisallegingtheirclaimssharecommonissuesoflaworfactandproposingajointtrialremovabilitywasproperatthattimeregardlessofwhethertheclaimsultimatelyproceededtoajointtrial.Onceinfederalcourthoweverdefendantsarefreetoarguethatnotwithstandingplaintisallegationsplaintisclaimslacksucientlycommonissuesoflaworfacttomeritjoinderinwhichcasethecourtmayseverthemisjoinedplaintisbydismissingtheclaimsofallbuttherstnamedplaintiwithoutprejudicetothelingofindividualactions.usdefendantsmayproperlyseekremovalbasedontheallegationsinplaintiscomplaintthattheirclaimssharecommonissuesbutsubsequentlyarguethatplaintisdonotactuallydemonstratethecommonalityofissuesrequiredtojoinplaintisunderthefederalrules.INSURANCEBadfaithclaimforfailuretosettlemayberejectedasamatteroflawwhereplaintiffnevermadeasettlementdemandanddefendantinsurerdidnotunreasonablydelayinofferingpolicylimitswhenliabilitywasclear.Reidv.MercuryInsuranceCompany2013220Cal.App.4th262petitionforreviewpending.isinsurancecoverageandbadfaithactionaroseoutofanautoaccidentinwhichtheinsuredsliabilitywascleartotheinsurershortlyaertheaccident.ethirdpartydidnotmakeanysettlementdemandbeforelingsuit.einsurerdidnotimmediatelyoeritspolicylimitswhilewaitingformedicalrecordsbutdidsowithinthreemonthsaerreceivingthoserecords.etrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentfortheinsurer.eCourtofAppealSecondDist.Div.Eightarmedholdingthatinsurershavenodutytoinitiatesettlementeortsevenwhereitappearsthatthereisasubstantiallikelihoodtheclaimantwillrecoverdamagesinexcessofpolicylimits.Aninsurercannotbeliableforbadfaithfailuretosettleabsentanindicationfromtheinjuredpartythatheorsheisinclinedtosettlewithinpolicylimits.Aninsurersdutytosettleisnotprecipitatedsolelybythelikelihoodofanexcessjudgmentagainsttheinsured.Intheabsenceofasettlementdemandoranyothermanifestationtheinjuredpartyisinterestedinsettlementwhentheinsurerhasdonenothingtoforeclosethepossibilityofsettlementwendthereisnoliabilityforbadfaithfailuretosettle.LiabilityinsurersreservationofrightsdoesnottriggerdutytoappointCumiscounsel.FederalInsuranceCo.etal.v.MBLInc.2013219Cal.App.4th29.TodeterminetheircontractualobligationswithrespectanunderlyingCERCLAactionassertingpollutioncontaminationclaimsthedefendantsliabilityinsurersledadeclaratoryreliefactiontobefreedfromtheobligationunderInsuranceCodesection2860topayforindependentcounselknownasCumiscounselfollowinga1984decisionestablishingthatobligationtorepresenttheinsuredadrycleaningchemicalsupplier.esupplierarguedthatinthedisputeovertheremediationofaCaliforniaSuperfundsitetheinsurersdecisiontoprovideadefenseonlyunderareservationofrightscreatedaconictofinterestsuchthatdefensecounselcouldnotproperlyjointlyrepresenttheinsuredandinsurersinatripartiterelationship.etrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheinsurers.eCourtofAppealSixthDist.armedholdingthatnoconicttriggeringadutytoretainCumiscounselwascreatedbytheexistenceofpotentiallyapplicablecoveragelimitationsinapolicysuchastherequirementthatapollutiondischargebesuddenandaccidentalwheretheinsurerdidnotspecicallyraisethoseprovisionswhenreservingtheirrightstodenycoverageforanyjudgmentthatmightbereturnedagainsttheinsured.Moreoverevenifinsurershavepointedtospecicpolicylanguagewhilereservingtheirrightstherecanbenoconictofinterestbasedonissuesthatdefensecounselappointedbytheinsurercannotcontrol.ForexamplethecontinuedfrompageiicontinuedonpageivVoume32013erictgreenseetsiiithedefendantinsuredslackofassetstheinsurersearlierfailuretonegotiateinresponsetoattemptstosettlewithinpolicylimitssubjectedtheinsurertoliabilityonitspolicyforamountsinexcessofthelimits.eCourtofAppealSecondDist.Div.Eightheldthetrialcourtproperlyfoundthesection998oertobereasonableandthereforevalidtakingintoaccountthepotentialthattheinsurermightbeliableforanexcessjudgmentwhenevaluatingwhetheraCodeofivilProcedureSec.998oerwasreasonable.Defendantsmayproperlyseekremovalbasedonallegationsinplaintiffscomplaintattercamssarecommonssuesutsubsequentlyarguethatplaintiffsdonotactuallydemonstratethecommonalityofissuesreuiredtooinlaintiffsunderthefrlrl.Visendiv.BankofAmericaN.A.9thCir.2013733F.3d863.Agroupof137plaintisledasinglestate-courtcomplaintstatingPlaintisandeachofthemdemandajurytrial.DefendantsremovedthecasetofederalcourtundertheClassActionFairnessActCAFAandthenmovedtodismisstheactiononthegroundthatplaintisclaimsweremisjoinedunderFederalRulesofCivilProcedure20abecausetheylackcommonality.etrialcourtaccuseddefendantsofgamesmanshipandbadfaithfortakingwhatitconsideredinconsistentpositionsdefendantsobtainedCAFAremovalbyshowingthatclaimsof100ormorepersonsareproposedtobetriedjointlyonthegroundthatplaintisclaimsinvolvecommonquestionsoflaworfact28U.S.C.1332d11BiandthendefendantssubsequentlyarguedthatplaintisclaimsweremisjoinedbecausetheydidnotraisecommonissuesoflaworfactFed.R.Civ.P.20a.eNinthCircuitreversedholdingdefendantsactedproperly.ecourtheldthatCAFAremovabilityisdeterminedatthetimeremovalissoughtandonceplaintisledasinglecomplaintwithover100plaintisallegingtheirclaimssharecommonissuesoflaworfactandproposingajointtrialremovabilitywasproperatthattimeregardlessofwhethertheclaimsultimatelyproceededtoajointtrial.Onceinfederalcourthoweverdefendantsarefreetoarguethatnotwithstandingplaintisallegationsplaintisclaimslacksucientlycommonissuesoflaworfacttomeritjoinderinwhichcasethecourtmayseverthemisjoinedplaintisbydismissingtheclaimsofallbuttherstnamedplaintiwithoutprejudicetothelingofindividualactions.usdefendantsmayproperlyseekremovalbasedontheallegationsinplaintiscomplaintthattheirclaimssharecommonissuesbutsubsequentlyarguethatplaintisdonotactuallydemonstratethecommonalityofissuesrequiredtojoinplaintisunderthefederalrules.INRANEBadfaithclaimforfailuretosettlemayberejectedasamatteroflawwhereplaintiffnevermaeasettementemanandefendantinsurerdidnotunreasonablydelayinofferingpolicylimitswhenliabilitywasr.Reidv.MercuryInsuranceCompany2013220Cal.App.4th262petitionforreviewpending.isinsurancecoverageandbadfaithactionaroseoutofanautoaccidentinwhichtheinsuredsliabilitywascleartotheinsurershortlyaertheaccident.ethirdpartydidnotmakeanysettlementdemandbeforelingsuit.einsurerdidnotimmediatelyoeritspolicylimitswhilewaitingformedicalrecordsbutdidsowithinthreemonthsaerreceivingthoserecords.etrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentfortheinsurer.eCourtofAppealSecondDist.Div.Eightarmedholdingthatinsurershavenodutytoinitiatesettlementeortsevenwhereitappearsthatthereisasubstantiallikelihoodtheclaimantwillrecoverdamaesinexcessofpolicylimits.Aninsurercannotbeliableforbadfaithfailuretosettleabsentanindicationfromtheinjuredpartythatheorsheisinclinedtosettlewithinpolicylimits.Aninsurersdutytosettleisnotprecipitatedsolelybythelikelihoodofanexcessjudmentaainsttheinsured.Intheabsenceofasettlementdemandoranyothermanifestationtheinjuredpartyisinterestedinsettlementwhentheinsurerhasdonenothintoforeclosethepossibilityofsettlementwendthereisnoliabilityforbadfaithfailuretosettle.Liabilityinsurersreservationofrightsdoesnottriggerdutytoappointumiscounsel.FederalInsuranceCo.etal.v.MBLInc.2013219Cal.App.4th29.TodeterminetheircontractualobliationswithrespectanunderlyinCERCLAactionassertinpollutioncontaminationclaimsthedefendantsliabilityinsurersledadeclaratoryreliefactiontobefreedfromtheobliationunderInsuranceCodesection2860topayforindependentcounselknownasCumiscounselfollowinga1984decisionestablishingthatobligationtorepresenttheinsuredadrycleaningchemicalsupplier.esupplierarguedthatinthedisputeovertheremediationofaCaliforniaSuperfundsitetheinsurersdecisiontoprovideadefenseonlyunderareservationofrightscreatedaconictofinterestsuchthatdefensecounselcouldnotproperlyjointlyrepresenttheinsuredandinsurersinatripartiterelationship.etrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentinfavoroftheinsurers.eCourtofAppealSixthDist.armedholdingthatnoconicttriggeringadutytoretainCumiscounselwascreatedbytheexistenceofpotentiallyapplicablecoveragelimitationsinapolicysuchastherequirementthatapollutiondischargebesuddenandaccidentalwheretheinsurerdidnotspecicallyraisethoseprovisionswhenreservingtheirrightstodenycoverageforanyjudgmentthatmightbereturnedagainsttheinsured.Moreoverevenifinsurershavepointedtospecicpolicylanguagewhilereservingtheirrightstherecanbenoconictofinterestbasedonissuesthatdefensecounselappointedbytheinsurercannotcontrol.Forexampletheontinuedromaeiicontnueonpagev