Insurance Litigation Law Blog | Regulatory Law | Bad Faith | California | Lawyer | Attorney | Barger & Wolen

On June 11, 2010, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reissued its decision (following rehearing) in Legacy Vulcan v. Superior Court (Transport Insurance Company), and held that an umbrella insurer became a “primary umbrella” insurer and was obligated to defend its insured since no scheduled underlying insurance applied, and the $100,000 self-insured retention under the umbrella policy was applicable only to the insurer’s indemnity obligation. 

The decision, while providing a detailed analysis of the umbrella/excess policy issued by Transport, presents more of an isolated instance of an insurer not carefully limiting the scope of its defense obligation under a policy issued nearly 30 years ago, rather than an opinion providing any broad pronouncement that umbrella insurers are to provide a duty to defend from dollar one.

Vulcan was named in multiple lawsuits claiming environmental contamination and alleging damages occurring over a number of years, including when Transport’s Excess Catastrophe Liability Policy was in effect. Vulcan tendered the defense of the actions to several insurers, including Transport, but none of the insurers offered a defense. Vulcan paid for its own defense and settled the lawsuits. Transport filed a declaratory relief action against Vulcan to determine its rights and obligations under the policy.

The coverage action proceeded with the parties stipulating to resolve certain legal issues before trial, and many of the facts of the dispute (including the reasons why the underlying insurers did not provide a defense to Vulcan) did not make their way into the Court of Appeal’s decision. The trial court found that Transport had no duty to defend Vulcan until it established that the applicable underlying insurance had been exhausted and upon a showing that the claims were actually covered.  

In analyzing coverage under the Transport policy, the appellate court went into great detail examining the language used by Transport in its insuring agreements, limits of liability section, definitions, and conditions. The court held that the Transport policy provided both excess and umbrella coverage. With respect to the umbrella coverage portion, and based on the ambiguity of the policy’s use of the unqualified term “underlying insurance” in the insuring agreement, the court held that, under the facts of this case (where no primary or underlying insurer defended Vulcan), Transport’s umbrella coverage was primary umbrella defense coverage. 

Finding the umbrella coverage to be primary, the ordinary rules regarding a primary insurer’s duty to defend applied. As such, Transport was obligated to defend Vulcan regardless of the exhaustion of any underlying insurance and regardless of the provision for a $100,000 retained limit (which, in this case, was found to only apply to the duty to indemnify). Moreover, Vulcan did not need to establish that the claims were actually covered under the Transport policy to trigger the duty to defend, but merely show a potential for coverage. 

In its analysis, the court made clear that the result here was based on the policy language at issue. For example, the court observed that “the impact of a policy reference to a ‘self-insured retention’ or ‘retained limit’ on the duty to defend will depend on the language of a particular policy,” and it referenced cases where policy language expressly stated there was no duty to defend unless the retained limit was exhausted. 

This case therefore stands as another warning to insurers to be careful in drafting policy language, and this is especially true when it come to the duty to defend.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Scott Minkler sued David Schwartz and David’s mother, Betty Schwartz, alleging that David, an adult, sexually molested Scott, who was then a minor. The complaint alleged several causes of action against David, including sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, along with a single cause of action for negligent supervision against Betty, based on allegations that David molested Scott in Betty’s home, that Betty knew her son was molesting Scott, but that Betty failed to take reasonable steps to stop her son from doing so. Safeco Insurance Company of America insured Betty under a number of homeowners policies, in which David was an additional insured. Relying on the intentional acts exclusion, Safeco denied coverage as to both David and Betty.  This insurance coverage issue eventually made its way to the California Supreme Court.

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Minkler v. Safeco Insurance Company of America (June 17, 2010).  The Court determined that, despite the policy’s exclusion for injury that was “expected or intended” by “an” insured, or was the foreseeable result of “an” insured’s intentional act, the policy’s severability-of-interests clause (which provides that “[t]his insurance applies separately to each insured”) created an ambiguity with respect to a co-insured who did not act intentionally such that coverage would be resolved in favor of the co-insured.

After reiterating the rules by which insurance policies are to be interpreted under California law, the Supreme Court framed the issue as follows:

The issue presented is whether this severability or “separate insurance” clause created ambiguity as to the scope of the exclusion for intentional acts by “an” insured, and if so, whether the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of an interpretation whereby the exclusion applied only to the insured who committed such acts. We conclude that the answer to both questions is yes.  

In so concluding that the policy provided coverage for Betty, the Court disposed of a number of arguments raised by Safeco (such as the holding would encourage “householders to turn a ‘blind eye’ to acts of sexual abuse taking place in their homes”) as well as finding that the history of the introduction of the severability clause into liability policies in the 1950s further supported the Court’s determination of ambiguity. 

Moreover, the Court recognized that courts throughout the country have split over the issue, with the majority “concluding that a severability clause does not alter the collective application of an exclusion for intentional, criminal, or fraudulent acts by ‘an’ or ‘any’ insured.” Despite these “greater number of cases,” the Court found that its holding would preserve the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured that there would be coverage so long as the insured’s own conduct did not fall within the intentional acts exclusion.

Finally, the Court also sought to downplay the breadth of its holding by noting that many insurers’ policies contain an explicit exclusion for claims arising from sexual molestation, or that Safeco could have avoided this uncertainty to begin with by modifying its severability clause to only address the available limits under the policy rather than create an ambiguity between that clause and the intentional acts exclusion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By David J. McMahon and Donielle Colich

On June 10, 2010, Defendant liability insurers for global manufacturing company Solutia, Inc. filed their Reply Brief  in support of a motion to dismiss two counts in the complaint filed by the federal government in United States v. James Stricker, et al., Case No.CV-09-02423-KOB (“Stricker”). 

The Reply is the latest in a multitude of briefings filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in the Stricker litigation, which arises from the government’s complaint to recover Medicare conditional payments that were made to approximately 907 Medicare beneficiaries involved in a $300 million class action liability settlement (the “Abernathy Settlement”). 

In its Complaint, the government alleges that the insurers had an obligation under the Medicare Secondary Payer (“MSP”) Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2), to make primary payments for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries, for which Medicare had conditionally paid. The federal regulations implementing the MSP Statute, in particular 42 C.F.R. § 411.25, require settling parties, their counsel, and their insurers to notify Medicare of any settlement, judgment, award or other payment that was made when the case was resolved.

The government asserts that none of the parties to the Abernathy Settlement notified it of the settlement and failed to reimburse Medicare for conditional payments made on behalf of plaintiff beneficiaries. Two counts of the Complaint specifically seek reimbursement of Medicare’s conditional payments and double damages from the insurers, defined as “primary plans” under the MSP Statute, for their alleged failure to provide for primary payment or appropriate reimbursement of these conditional Medicare payments.

In support of their motion to dismiss, the insurers assert that the government failed to file suit within either of the potentially applicable three-year or six-year statutes of limitations. The insurers also dispute the government’s claims due to the fact that the government provided no specifics as to individual Plaintiff Medicare beneficiaries (i.e. the identity of beneficiaries, the physical injuries suffered, any medical treatments).

The Stricker lawsuit reinforces Medicare’s published statutory recovery rights and insurers potentially liability for reimbursement of conditional payments even where insurers have previously paid out the settlement proceeds. It also illustrates the importance of early case investigation as to potential plaintiff Medicare beneficiaries and serves as a warning to counsel and insurance carriers that the government’s lenient collection efforts under the MSP Statute are a thing of the past. If parties fail to account for Medicare’s interests, they may lose their right to appeal the conditional payment amount, and the government may be entitled to seek double damages from insurers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

California Department of Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, issued a press release today indicating that the Department has retained an outside actuarial firm to analyze regulatory rate change filings made with the Department by the four major health insurers in the individual market – Anthem Blue Cross, Aetna, Health Net, and Blue Shield of California. 

The purpose of the independent actuarial analysis is to ensure that health insurers, in raising their premium rates, comply with state law mandating that 70 cents of every dollar collected in health insurance premiums are to be spent on medical benefits.

In February 2010, after the Department received Anthem Blue Cross’ proposed rate change filing indicating that it was seeking to increase individual rates by up to 39%, Commissioner Poizner took the unprecedented step of requesting that an outside actuarial firm analyze the proposed rate increase to ensure that Anthem Blue Cross’ actuarial assumptions were justified and that it complied with the 70 cents on the dollar state law mandate. 

The Commissioner indicated at that time in a letter to Anthem’s parent, Wellpoint, Inc., that

[i]f the independent actuary concludes that Anthem’s assumptions are unjustified and that Anthem will pay out less than 70 cents of the premium dollar for benefits, I will take immediate action to stop Anthem from charging the increased rates to California consumers.”

On April 28, 2010, Axene Health Partners, LLC (“Axene”), the actuarial firm retained by the Department to analyze Anthem’s rate change filing, issued a report containing its findings. In short, Axene found that Anthem’s actuarial calculations and methodology were flawed which resulted in inflated total lifetime loss ratios. This, in turn, resulted in a finding by the Department that Anthem had attempted to charge consumers 50% more than state law allows. In response to these findings, Anthem withdrew its rate change filing.

The press release issued today by the Department indicates that, in light of Axene’s findings with respect to Anthem’s rate change filing, the Department will require that, in addition to the actuarial review conducted internally by the Department, the four major health insurers’ rate change filings be scrutinized by an outside actuarial firm to ensure accuracy and compliance with state law.  

Currently, Axene is reviewing rate change filings made by Aetna and Blue Shield, and will no doubt be reviewing Anthem’s anticipated rate change re-filing, as well as any future rate change filings made by Health Net.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks