equitable contribution claim in California

2023Co. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1303 ; see also Fireman’s Fund, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1294, fn.4 .) If the insurers do not (1) “share the same level of obligation, (2) on the same risk, (3) as to the same insured[,] . . . the equitable contribution claim must fail.” (Lexington Ins.

2023Co. v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1303 ; see also Fireman’s Fund, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1294, fn.4 .) If the insurers do not (1) “share the same level of obligation, (2) on the same risk, (3) as to the same insured[,] . . . the equitable contribution claim must fail.” (Lexington Ins.

2006Where two or more insurers’ policies potentially cover an insured’s liability and one of them bears the defense burden alone, the insurer bearing that burden is entitled to equitable contribution from the nondefending carriers. {Fireman’s Fund, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1293 ; Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co. (1997) 17 Cal.4th 38, 70, fn. 19 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 118 , 948 P.2d 909 ]; Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins.

2006Where two or more insurers’ policies potentially cover an insured’s liability and one of them bears the defense burden alone, the insurer bearing that burden is entitled to equitable contribution from the nondefending carriers. {Fireman’s Fund, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 1293 ; Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co. (1997) 17 Cal.4th 38, 70, fn. 19 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 118 , 948 P.2d 909 ]; Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins.

2012In applying this rule to the facts before us, however, we keep in mind that an equitable contribution claim between coinsurers is not based upon contract, but instead involves “ ‘equitable principles designed to accomplish ultimate justice in the bearing of a specific burden.’ ” (Signal Companies, Inc. v. Harbor Ins Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 359, 369 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 799 , 612 P.2d 889 ].) “ ‘California follows the general rule that an insurer that discharges a common obligation of another insurer may seek contribution from the second insurer. [Citations.] The insurers’ “respective obligations flow

2012In applying this rule to the facts before us, however, we keep in mind that an equitable contribution claim between coinsurers is not based upon contract, but instead involves “ ‘equitable principles designed to accomplish ultimate justice in the bearing of a specific burden.’ ” (Signal Companies, Inc. v. Harbor Ins Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 359, 369 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 799 , 612 P.2d 889 ].) “ ‘California follows the general rule that an insurer that discharges a common obligation of another insurer may seek contribution from the second insurer. [Citations.] The insurers’ “respective obligations flow

2013Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 930, 933, fn. 2 [“Continental policy was considered a ‘fronting policy’ because, through an agreement reached between Continental and Union Oil [its insured], Union Oil’s deductible was equal to the limits of liability of the Continental policy”].) Rockwell Collins contends, without citation to authority, “for purposes of the doctrine of equitable contribution, the timing of when an insured became completely self- insured makes no difference.” To the contrary, when the uninsured period arose— whether the insured elected to forego any insurance (self-insure) or obtaine

2012Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1366 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ].) In addition, the trial court found “Glencoe never made any effort to secure the authority necessary to settle, or contribute to the settlement of the [construction defect suit] even though the insured was facing a time-sensitive settlement opportunity.” To allow Glencoe to defeat an equitable contribution claim merely based on the timing of the payment of the SIR would award Glencoe for its inaction and work an injustice.

2012Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1366 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ].) In addition, the trial court found “Glencoe never made any effort to secure the authority necessary to settle, or contribute to the settlement of the [construction defect suit] even though the insured was facing a time-sensitive settlement opportunity.” To allow Glencoe to defeat an equitable contribution claim merely based on the timing of the payment of the SIR would award Glencoe for its inaction and work an injustice.

2007Co. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 762, 766 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] [intent of the parties at contract formation governs interpretation].) Although ISOP’s excess insurance, was triggered when the underlying policy was .exhausted, this event did not change the fact the policy was written to cover different risks and parties than CNA’s. policy. 4 Because this case concerns equitable subrogation, we need not address ISOP’s extensive discussion of the horizontal exhaustion rule as those cases invoke the doctrine of equitable contribution, which is not controlling in this case. 5 Again, ISOP appears to confuse

2007Co. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 762, 766 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] [intent of the parties at contract formation governs interpretation].) Although ISOP’s excess insurance, was triggered when the underlying policy was .exhausted, this event did not change the fact the policy was written to cover different risks and parties than CNA’s. policy. 4 Because this case concerns equitable subrogation, we need not address ISOP’s extensive discussion of the horizontal exhaustion rule as those cases invoke the doctrine of equitable contribution, which is not controlling in this case. 5 Again, ISOP appears to confuse

1997(See, e.g., CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 598, 620 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 276 ].) That assumption, however, does not compel the conclusion that, because it was issued “fronting” policies by INA, Aerojet should be required to make such a contribution itself.

1997(See, e.g., CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 598, 620 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 276 ].) That assumption, however, does not compel the conclusion that, because it was issued “fronting” policies by INA, Aerojet should be required to make such a contribution itself.

1967Co. (1961) 57 Cal.2d 27, 35-38 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 12 , 366 P.2d 455 ], The equitable-contribution principle requires an equitable distribution of the loss among those who share liability for it.

1967Co. (1961) 57 Cal.2d 27, 35-38 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 12 , 366 P.2d 455 ], The equitable-contribution principle requires an equitable distribution of the loss among those who share liability for it.