Insights
Publications

Alert: Liability Insurance Policies Don’t Cover Settlements, Only Judgments, Court Rules

1/30/2008 Articles

The California Supreme Court has denied review of a California Court of Appeal decision that creates a significant trap for the unwary under most standard general liability policies.  The opinion held that a standard form excess insurance policy, which obligated the carrier to indemnify for "damages," did not cover amounts the insured agreed to pay in a settlement. 

In Aerojet-General Corp. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 155 Cal.App.4th 132 (September 13, 2007, review denied December 19, 2007), the Court of Appeal interpreted excess insurance policies that obligated carriers to indemnify Aerojet for "all sums which the Assured shall become legally obligated to pay, or by final judgment be adjudged to pay, to any person or persons as damages."  Relying on Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 945 (2001) ("Powerine I"), the Court of Appeal held that "the term ‘damages' as interpreted in Powerine I and as used in a liability insurance policy means only money ordered by a court to be paid."  It thus does not include settlement amounts paid by the insured.  The California Supreme Court also declined to depublish the opinion.

The decision contains a significant trap for the unwary.  Previously, when a carrier denied coverage, insureds were free to settle the claim without the carrier's consent and pursue coverage later.  That course of action now could eliminate coverage.  Even when the carrier is defending under a reservation of rights, the Aerojet decision creates an additional impediment to settlement and has the potential to increase litigation costs.

Implications of Aerojet-General for Policyholders

Although Aerojet-General was decided in the context of coverage for environmental claims under excess policies, the decision turned on the "as damages" language in the insuring agreement.  This language is standard in primary general liability policies, and common in excess, umbrella and errors and omissions policies.  Insureds therefore should consider the following steps:

  • Verify the wording in your policies, or ask your coverage counsel to do so. Some policies, especially umbrella and errors and omissions policies, cover "loss" or "ultimate net loss," terms often defined to include settlements.
  • Do not settle potentially covered claims without first obtaining the carrier's consent and waiver of any Aerojet defense - even if the carrier has denied coverage.
  • If the carrier is defending, seek an "Aerojet waiver" well in advance of beginning settlement negotiations.
  • Address the issue prospectively, at least at the time of policy renewal, if not sooner. Insurers may be willing to add an Aerojet waiver to the policy by endorsement. Risk managers should consider requesting such a waiver when placing or renewing coverage to avoid this trap for the unwary.

If the carrier refuses to waive Aerojet-General and consent to a settlement, the insured must weigh its alternatives, which may include: (1) entering into a settlement that is documented as a court judgment, (2) reducing the claim to judgment by means of an uncontested trial or a stipulated judgment with a covenant not to execute, or (3) choosing not to settle, and permitting the case to proceed to judgment, thereby triggering the duty to indemnify if damages are proven.  Evaluating these alternatives requires consideration of a number of factors, including whether the carrier is defending, whether the carrier has asserted a reservation of rights, the precise terms and conditions of the policy, the strength of the coverage argument, and the risk of excess exposure.  No simple answer exists how to handle this situation, and a case-by-case evaluation is required. 

The California Supreme Court may clarify the issues raised in Aerojet-General in the relatively near future in a case now pending before it, Ameron Int'l Corp. v. Insurance Co. of the State of PA.  That case held that there is a duty to defend and indemnify an insured in administrative proceedings, including a duty to pay amounts paid in settlement, under similar but arguably broader policy language than that at issue in Powerine I and Aerojet-General.

Firm Highlights

News

Threat of Cyberattack by Iran Still Critical, Experts Say

Insurance Recovery Partner Tyler Gerking commented in  The Wall Street Journal article "Threat of Cyberattack by Iran Still Critical, Experts Say." In the article, Tyler said that such direct actions by a nation-state against...

Read More
Publication

Reimbursement of Employment-Related Expenses Is Not a “Wage and Hour” Claim Within the Meaning of EPLI Exclusion

A recent California appellate court decision found that a wage and hour exclusion in an Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) policy did not bar coverage for claims under California Labor Code sections 2800 and...

Read More
Publication

INSIGHT: California Ruling in Wage-Hour Coverage Suit Offers Employers a Defense Hook

Wage-and-hour exclusions are common in EPLI policies, frequently with defense-only sub-limits that are woefully inadequate. Farella Braun + Martel LLP’s Shanti Eagle looks at a recent decision adding an avenue to establish or expand...

Read More
News

Companies are paying big bucks to insure boards against liability as class-action suits soar

Farella Insurance Recovery Partner Mary McCutcheon was quoted in the CNBC article, "Companies are paying big bucks to insure boards against liability as class-action suits soar." Read the article, here .

Read More
Event

2020 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar

Raymond Sheen will speak at the 2020 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar session, "Fingerprints, Facial Recognition, Permission? Oh My! Biometric Privacy Coverage Litigation Arriving Soon in Your State." Details: The Illinois Biometric Privacy Act...

Read More
Event

2020 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar

Join Erica Villanueva for a discussion on "Coverage Arguments that Work in Court but May Backfire at Mediation" at the 2020 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar. Details: In mediation, context is everything. Who are you...

Read More
Publication

3 Lessons For Calif. Insureds From Late-Notice Rule Decision

In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company ,[1] the California Supreme Court resolved two previously open questions in insurance law: (1) it concluded that the notice-prejudice rule[2] is a fundamental public policy of...

Read More
Publication

Are Losses Resulting from Phishing Incidents Covered by Crime Policies Insuring Against Computer Fraud?

It is an all-too-common dilemma. As phishing schemes have become more prevalent and more sophisticated, businesses of all sizes have fallen victim to these attacks where a fraudster will use a spoofed email or other...

Read More
Publication

California Supreme Court Ruling Clarifies That the Notice-Prejudice Rule Is a Fundamental Public Policy That May Override Choice of Law Provisions

In  Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company , the California Supreme Court resolved two previously open questions in insurance law: (1) it concluded that the notice-prejudice rule [1]  is a fundamental public policy...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Ranked Among “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers

Read More