Wallman v. Suddock
200 Cal. App. 4th 1288
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wallmans are general partners in Sea Val Enterprises; RTG Investments owned 23 LLCs with real properties; Ingraham property (1325 Ingraham St., LA) was insured by Crusader (1993–1994) and involved in Rodriguez suit; RTG procured Capital Insurance Group primary policies (2005–2006) via Suddock; RTG obtained American Guarantee excess/umbrella Coverage A for 07/15/05–07/15/06; Schedule of Underlying Insurance named Capital as underlying insurer with $1,000,000 per occurrence and listed 25 properties, excluding Ingraham; Rodriguez action (1994 injury) settled 2007 for $1,000,000 with Crusader contributing its policy limits; trial court granted summary judgments favoring Suddock and American Guarantee; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coverage A of American Guarantee covers the Rodriguez claim | Wallmans: Coverage should exceed all primary policies, including Crusader. | American Guarantee: Underlying insurance identified as Capital for 2005–06; Rodriguez outside term and not on schedule. | No; Rodriguez not within Coverage A under Schedule of Underlying Insurance. |
| Whether Suddock owed a duty to procure insurance for past years or previously owned properties | Wallmans contend Suddock should have secured excess coverage for prior years/properties. | Suddock owed ordinary duty to procure coverage requested; no duty to obtain unrequested or past-year coverage. | No triable issue; no duty to procure past-year/excluded-property coverage. |
| Whether Suddock held himself out as an insurance expert creating a heightened duty | Wallmans relied on Suddock as an expert for their insurance needs. | Conclusions insufficient to establish holding-out as expert. | No triable issue; conclusory statements insufficient to create heightened duty. |
| Whether Suddock misrepresented scope of coverage by claiming universal coverage | Suddock stated he could not imagine a claim not covered by excess policy. | General assurance, not specific misrepresentation; no expanded duty. | Not actionable misrepresentation; no triable issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powerine Oil Co., Inc. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.4th 377 (Cal. 2005) (insurance contract interpretation; de novo standard for policy interpretation)
- Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 18 Cal.4th 857 (Cal. 1998) (contract interpretation; language governs if clear)
- Fitzpatrick v. Hayes, 57 Cal.App.4th 916 (Cal. App. 1990) (duty based on specific inquiries; umbrella coverage cases)
- Ahern v. Dillenback, 1 Cal.App.4th 36 (Cal. App. 1991) (no duty to procure unrequested coverages; reasonable reliance on agent)
- Paper Savers, Inc. v. Nacsa, 51 Cal.App.4th 1090 (Cal. App. 1996) (holding-out/affirmative assurances create heightened duty when relied upon)
- Jones v. Grewe, 189 Cal.App.3d 950 (Cal. App. 1986) (duty of care in agency; general vs. heightened duties)
- Desai v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 47 Cal.App.4th 1110 (Cal. App. 1996) (failure to deliver agreed-upon coverage; actionable procurement)
- Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers’ Mutual Ins. Co., 5 Cal.4th 854 (Cal. 1993) (ambiguity assessment; context-specific)
- Essex Ins. Co. v. City of Bakersfield, 154 Cal.App.4th 696 (Cal. App. 2007) (conspicuousness/clarity of coverage-taking provisions)