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

Publication

When Can an Insurer Pursue a Malpractice Claim Against Defense Counsel Retained for an Insured? (Part One)

By Jalen M. Brown, Kristin Davis, Shanti Eagle, PeterJ. Georgiton, and John Mark Hart When an insurer accepts an insured’s tender and agrees to provide a defense, it is often an afterthought as to whether...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
Publication

BIPA Liability: Existing CGL Coverage May Provide a Lifeline for Policyholders

Developments in the law have increased the potential liability that companies could face under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), but fortunately for policyholders, Illinois case law has also solidified coverage for BIPA...

Read More
Publication

Reporting Dispute Claims Within Closely Held Wineries

Many wineries operate as closely held companies, meaning they’re owned by an individual or small group of shareholders, who are often members of the same family. Disputes regarding ownership interests can arise, particularly when directors...

Read More
Publication

Regulatory Changes Underway To Address Dwindling California Property Insurance Market

We keep hearing about how difficult it is for our clients to get property insurance these days, both for homes and businesses in Northern California’s wildfire-prone areas. Which, of course, is most of Northern...

Read More
News

Who’s Who Legal 2023 Recognizes Farella Lawyers

Six Farella Braun + Martel lawyers have been recommended by Who’s Who Legal 2023 as leading practitioners in their fields. Who’s Who Legal – Environment 2023 James Colopy Robert Hines David Lazerwitz Chris Locke...

Read More
Publication

Disputes Between Shareholders May Not Be Governed by Fiduciary Duties but Could Be Covered by Insurance

(As published in Private Company Director ) Disputes regarding ownership interests often arise in the context of closely held corporations, particularly when directors, officers, or majority shareholders sell or acquire ownership interests in the...

Read More
Publication

When Can an Insurer Pursue a Malpractice Claim Against Defense Counsel Retained for an Insured? (Part Two)

By Jalen M. Brown, Kristin Davis, Shanti Eagle, Peter J. Georgiton, and J. Mark Hart Part 1 of our two-part article addressed the circumstances in which an insurer can directly pursue malpractice claims against...

Read More