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

Farella Adds Technology Industry Group Depth

Read More
Publication

Insurance for the Cannabis Industry Program Takeaways

I recently moderated a Bar Association of San Francisco Insurance Section program co-sponsored with the Cannabis Law Section. The program highlighted recent changes to local insurance requirements and market availability of coverage for cannabis...

Read More
Publication

“That Particular Part” – Yet More

Massachusetts Appeals Court Gets It Right – Mostly Hot on the heels of the Federal Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in MTI, Inc. v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau , __ F.3d __...

Read More
Event

WSJ Pro Cybersecurity Symposium

Tyler Gerking will be speaking at the WSJ Pro Cybersecurity Symposium session, "The Role of Cyber-Insurance." Details: How much should you buy, what does it cover and how does it fit with an overall...

Read More
Event

EPLI Policies in Employment Litigation

Shanti Eagle is the moderator for this BASF Labor and Employment Section program, "EPLI Policies in Employment Litigation." This program will provide an overview of using Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) policies in employment...

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
Publication

Damages for Permit Revocation Constitute Covered “Loss of Use”

Insurers often claim “economic damages” are not covered under a standard commercial general liability (CGL) policy.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 28 Cal. App...

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

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
News

Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020

Read More