Insights
Publications

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

November 18, 2019 Articles
Bloomberg Law

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 defense coverage in cases involving California Labor Code violations and says it can benefit employers facing daunting defense costs in wage-and-hour cases.

Insurers need to re-evaluate their coverage denials for wage-and-hour insurance claims following a decision from the California Court of Appeal.

In an important ruling for insureds, a panel recently ruled that a wage-and-hour exclusion in an employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) policy did not bar coverage for claims alleging that an employer failed to reimburse employment expenses under the California labor code.

Until now, insurers regularly refused to defend wage-and-hour suits, or defended only under dedicated sub-limits, even if they included expense reimbursement claims. This new case, S. Cal. Pizza Co. LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. 11 EPL 2028 (filed Aug. 27 and published Sept. 20), makes it harder for insurers to refuse to defend their insured employers in such suits. And, even if that claim is insignificant compared to the wage-and-hour claims, the insurer will be required to defend the entire suit.

First Time Issue Addressed

California appellate courts had not previously addressed the scope of wage-and-hour exclusions in EPLI policies, though many federal district courts have grappled with these exclusions and produced varying results.

The Lloyd’s of London EPLI policy issued to Southern California Pizza granted coverage for “any failure to adopt, implement or enforce employment related policies or procedures … or … any other employment related workplace tort.” By endorsement, the policy also contained a wage-and-hour exclusion that eliminated coverage for any claim “based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly connected or related to, or in any way alleging violation(s) of any foreign, federal, state, or local, wage and hour or overtime law(s).”

The wage-and-hour exclusion contained a fairly common exception, providing that Lloyd’s would pay defense costs up to $250,000 for such claims, but without any obligation to indemnify the insured for damages it became legally obligated to pay.

The underlying plaintiffs brought a putative class action alleging, among other claims, that Southern California Pizza had failed to reimburse them for business-related mileage, travel, and cell phone usage expenses. Lloyd’s initially acknowledged its duty to defend pursuant to the exception to wage-and-hour exclusion only and, when the $250,000 had been expended, denied any further coverage obligations. Southern California Pizza sued for breach of contract and bad faith. The trial court granted Lloyd’s demurrer on the ground that all the claims alleged in the underlying complaint fell within the wage-and-hour exclusion.

The court of appeal panel addressed the question of what constitutes a “wage and hour law,” and found the term was limited to laws concerning the duration of work or the remuneration received in exchange for work. Although the majority of the claims alleged by the underlying plaintiffs were easily determined to be wage-and-hour violations, the claims for failure to reimburse plaintiffs for necessary business-related expenses were not payments made in exchange for labor or services.

The court reasoned that the expense reimbursement statutes (Cal. Lab. C. §§ 2800 & 2802) did not mention wages or hours, or appear in sections of the Labor Code governing “compensation” or “working hours.”

The court went on to address the argument that the claims did not fall within the coverage grant to begin with, as they were statutory violations and not “employment related workplace tort[s].” The court held that a “violation of a statutory duty owed another may be a tort,” and the statutory language describing “losses caused by the employer’s want of ordinary care” was classic tort terminology.

Therefore, allegations based entirely on statutory violations can and do constitute workplace torts for the purpose of triggering coverage under EPLI policies.

Because the claims for California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802 violations, as well as the derivative 17200 and PAGA claims, were potentially within the scope of the policy and not excluded, the court found the wage-and-hour exclusion had “no application” to this case. Southern California Pizza was therefore entitled to a defense of the entire action and was not limited to the $250,000 wage-and-hour defense sub-limit.

Decision Potentially Limited Coverage for Other Claims

While this decision expanded the potential for coverage for some statutory claims, it also potentially limited coverage for others. Notably, the decision also found that Labor Code section 226, pertaining to an employer’s obligation to provide accurate and itemized wage statements, is a “quintessential wage law.”

The panel reasoned that the statute was included in the chapter entitled “Payment of Wages,” and was “enacted ‘[a]s part of a comprehensive statutory scheme governing the payment of wages.’” In so holding, the court rejected several federal district court cases cited by the insured that had held otherwise.

This aspect of the decision may impact coverage for insureds going forward, depending on the language of the exclusion in the particular policy. Furthermore, the Southern California Pizza decision dealt exclusively with the duty to defend, and therefore did not consider other limitations on coverage that may ultimately impact insurers’ duty to indemnify settlements or judgments in these types of cases.

Wage-and-hour claims, especially class actions, can be costly to defend. Similar wage-and-hour exclusions are common in EPLI policies, frequently with defense-only sub-limits that are woefully inadequate. Therefore, this additional avenue to establish or expand defense coverage in cases involving California Labor Code violations can be highly beneficial to employers facing daunting defense costs in wage-and-hour cases.

However, the language of these exclusions can vary, and subtle changes in the wording can impact coverage depending on the allegations in the underlying complaint. While this decision is an important limitation on insurers’ attempts to broadly construe such exclusions to encompass all Labor Code violations, it is important to carefully analyze the specific policy language and the facts of the underlying complaint to determine whether the exclusion applies to all the claims alleged.

Additionally, it is vital for employers to review and negotiate the scope of their wage-and-hour exclusions when placing or renewing EPLI coverage.

Click here for a link to the publication.

Author Information

Shanti Eagle is a senior associate with Farella Braun + Martel LLP in San Francisco and a member of its Insurance Recovery Group.

Reproduced with permission from Copyright 2019 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) www.bna.com

Firm Highlights

News

Legal Experts Say Opioid Coverage Disputes Far From Over

Shanti Eagle was quoted in Law360 's article "Legal Experts Say Opioid Coverage Disputes Far From Over."  Read the article here (subscription required).

Read More
Publication

Using Multi-Factor Authentication as a Prerequisite to Cyber Liability Coverage

Multi-factor authentication (MFA) is more than an annoying popup or text message when logging onto a company’s website or platform. Not only is using MFA a sound security practice and good business, it is frequently...

Read More
Publication

Continuing Use of CGL Policies to Cover Data Breach Losses

Our lives and the products and devices we use become more dependent on data by the day. As a result, cyberattacks and data breaches present everchanging risks to companies and individuals, and the importance...

Read More
Publication

Are Communications With Your Insurance Broker Privileged Under New York Law?

Discussions with an insured’s insurance broker are often an important part of the negotiation process for insurance claims. Brokers can provide valuable insights on the drafting and underwriting of the insurance policy as well...

Read More
News

50 Farella Lawyers in 2023 The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America™; 4 Lawyer of the Year Awards

Read More
News

Farella Attorneys Named to 2022 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thirty-four Farella Braun + Martel lawyers were named to the Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists of top attorneys in Northern California for 2022. Super Lawyers: Carly Alameda – Business Litigation George Argyris &ndash...

Read More
Publication

Caught in the Crossfire — How will the war exclusion affect commercial policyholders?

The war exclusion has received a lot of attention over the past year, particularly since Russia invaded Ukraine in February. Policyholders’ concern that insurers will assert the exclusion as a basis to deny coverage...

Read More
News

Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes Farella Braun + Martel Lawyers, Practices

Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce that Chambers USA has recognized 14 lawyers and 6 practice areas in the legal directory’s 2022 edition. Individual California and Western U.S. Rankings: Sarah Bell &ndash...

Read More
Publication

Maximizing Your Insurance Coverage for Data Privacy Liability

With news of massive data breaches making headlines in recent years, the handling of personal data has become a focus for legislators and regulators around the world. Compliance with data privacy regulations such as the...

Read More
News

2022 Cannabis Insurance Market Update

Tyler Gerking was quoted in  PropertyCasualty360 's article "2022 Cannabis Insurance Market Update."  Read the full article here (subscription required). Watch the webinar "Cyber Insurance for the Cannabis Industry" here .

Read More