SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge has granted the defendant insurance company's motion for summary judgment in a dispute over the denial of coverage for a lawsuit regarding property damage.
Plaintiff Colony Insurance Co.’s motion for summary judgment was denied by Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 15 in its case against Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. Mt. Hawley’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
A hearing for both parties was held just a few days before the decision was ordered.
The ruling states in December 2017, Colony Insurance Co. filed a lawsuit against Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. and Gemini Insurance Co. in Alameda County Superior Court. The case was moved to the federal district court by Mt. Hawley and amended several times by Colony to include additional insurance companies as defendants.
One of the new complaints stated that the plaintiff and the defendants issued one or more insurance policies to Pro Craft Builders, Procraft Builders, Promax Builders Inc. and Pro-Max Construction (PB). The plaintiff alleges that all the policies had similar language and provided coverage for “property damage,” according to the ruling.
The ruling states that the PB parties were sued in 2015 in the Contempo cross-action and PB tendered a claim to the plaintiff and defendant. Colony provided a defense and the defendant denied coverage.
“The [third amended complaint] alleges claims for equitable contribution and declaratory relief. Colony has reached settlements with all defendants except Mt. Hawley. Now before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Colony and Mt. Hawley,” Illston wrote.
In filing a motion for summary judgment, the ruling states the moving party must only show to the court that there is not enough evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.
“The moving party, however, has no burden to disprove matters on which the non-moving party will have the burden of proof at trial,” Illston wrote.
Mt. Hawley argued that they properly denied coverage in August 2015. The court concluded that there were no facts presented by Colony that the denial was done improperly.
“The court agrees with Mt. Hawley and concludes that Mt. Hawley properly denied the claim and therefore did not and does not have a duty to defend PB in the Contempo cross-action,” according to the ruling.
Colony tried to counter the argument by asserting that its cross-complaint of alleged property damage was enough to raise coverage, which would shift the responsibility to Mt. Hawley. The court was not persuaded that Colony or PB was burdened with property damage.