Great American Assurance Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:21-cv-01135
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Great American Assurance v. Zurich American, Judge Seeborg ordered more briefing on insurance-coverage issues before deciding the parties’ cross-motions.
The parties to the pending cross-motions. Great American had to file the supplemental brief, and the defendants could respond jointly or separately under the page limits and deadlines set by the court.
What happened
Great American Assurance Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company concerns the parties’ pending cross-motions in an insurance dispute. The parties had tried mediation but reported that they could not resolve the case without a court decision or guidance on certain issues.
Great American argued that the California Supreme Court’s decision in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court supported its effort to seek reimbursement from insurers that covered an earlier period. The court questioned whether Montrose applied because Great American contended that the policies here avoided the “all-sums-with-stacking” approach discussed in that decision.
Judge Richard Seeborg ordered Great American to file a supplemental brief within one week and allowed the defendants to respond afterward. The court stated that it would then resubmit the matter for decision; it did not decide the pending motions in this order.
The detailed version
- Great American Assurance Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company · No. 3:21-cv-01135
- Richard Seeborg
- Jan. 9, 2023
Background
The parties’ various cross-motions were heard in August 2022. The court directed them to make further efforts to resolve their disputes through mediation. At a later case-management conference, the parties reported that mediation had failed and that further progress was unlikely without a decision on the pending motions or, at minimum, court guidance on evidentiary issues and the scope of the mediation privilege.
Issues Discussed
The order discussed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court. In that decision, the court stated that an insured may access an excess policy after exhausting other directly underlying excess policies with lower attachment points, while an insurer that indemnifies the insured may seek reimbursement from other insurers whose policies covered relevant periods.
Great American contended that it had followed that approach by paying the insured’s loss and bringing this action to seek reimbursement from lower-level insurers that issued policies covering an earlier period. The court noted, however, that Montrose addressed a follow-on question arising from an “all-sums-with-stacking” approach to long-tail injuries. Great American expressly argued that this approach did not apply to the policies in dispute because their language was intended to avoid that result.
The court further observed that the dispute appeared to differ from Montrose. Great American seemed to contend that subsidence claims should have been covered only under the 2007–2008 policy period, which did not include a policy issued by Great American. The court stated that it was not immediately clear how Montrose applied under those circumstances.
Order and Effect
The court ordered Great American to file, within one week, a supplemental brief of no more than 12 pages addressing the issues identified in the order. The defendants could file either a joint response of no more than 12 pages or separate responses of no more than 8 pages each, at their election, within one week after Great American’s filing. The court stated that the matter would then be resubmitted for decision.
This order required further briefing and did not resolve the pending cross-motions or decide the merits of the insurance dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.