45 Cal.App.5th 733
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Textron was insured under multiple Travelers CGL policies (covering 1966–1987) for multi-state manufacturing operations; policies defined "occurrence" and lacked choice-of-law clauses.
- In 2011 Esters sued Textron in California for mesothelioma from asbestos exposure in California; Travelers defended under a reservation of rights and later participated in a settlement contribution.
- Textron sued Travelers in California seeking a declaration that Travelers owed defense/indemnity; Travelers cross-complained for reimbursement and sought summary judgment asserting Rhode Island law governed and that the claim fell outside the policy periods under a manifestation trigger.
- In 1991 Textron had litigated a broad coverage action in Rhode Island against many insurers (including Travelers) and obtained a ruling that Rhode Island law applied to interpretation of the policies at issue in that multi-state litigation.
- The trial court held the Rhode Island choice-of-law ruling estopped Textron from invoking California law and granted Travelers summary judgment; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding collateral and judicial estoppel did not apply and that a triable issue existed under California’s continuous-trigger rule.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prior Rhode Island ruling precludes Textron from invoking California law (collateral/judicial estoppel) | Textron: Rhode Island ruling did not decide the specific choice-of-law issue for a California asbestos claim; factual predicates differ, so estoppel is inapplicable | Travelers: Rhode Island determination that "Rhode Island law applies" to the policies estops Textron from arguing California law | No. Collateral and judicial estoppel do not apply because the Rhode Island action did not actually litigate/decide the identical choice-of-law issue for the California asbestos claim |
| Whether Esters’ mesothelioma claim is a covered "occurrence" within policy periods under California’s continuous-trigger rule | Textron: Medical evidence supports exposure and disease progression beginning during policy periods, creating a triable issue under continuous trigger | Travelers: Rhode Island manifestation trigger controls (permitted by estoppel), so disease manifested after policy periods and there is no coverage | Under California law (continuous trigger) a triable factual issue exists whether exposure/progression occurred during policy periods; summary judgment for Travelers reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 10 Cal.4th 645 (Cal. 1995) (adopts continuous-trigger analysis for progressive third‑party injury)
- Aerojet‑General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co., 17 Cal.4th 38 (Cal. 1997) (explains continuous‑trigger rule language)
- Stonewall Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 14 Cal.App.4th 637 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (choice‑of‑law for multi‑risk policies emphasizes location of insured risk)
- Textron, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 754 A.2d 742 (R.I. 2000) (Rhode Island case applying manifestation/manifestation‑type trigger)
- Eagle‑Picher Indus., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 682 F.2d 12 (1st Cir. 1982) (adopts manifestation trigger for asbestosis‑type claims)