California's Landmark Insurance Ruling in the Stringfellow Litigation

Indemnification Strategies in Continuing Property Damage and Personal Injury Claims

Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar with Q&A

This program is included with the Strafford CLE Pass. Click for more information.
This program is included with the Strafford All-Access Pass. Click for more information.

Conducted on Wednesday, March 4, 2009

This seminar will discuss the new California appellate court ruling that allows stacking of insurance policies in cases where an insured is facing continuous injury claims. The panel will review the implications of the ruling and best practices for policyholders, insurers and their counsel.

Description

In January 2009, the California Court of Appeal (4th Dist.) ruled a policyholder facing long-term property damage or personal injury claims may stack liability policy limits across policy periods to maximize recovery. The decision is hailed as a landmark that could influence other courts nationwide.

The court of appeal overturned the trial court's holding that the policyholder could not stack the limits of multiple policies over an entire period of damage. The court of appeal also expressly rejected a 1998 California Court of Appeal (6th Dist.) decision that limited coverage.

The decision is particularly significant for policyholders in manufacturing, pharmaceutical, construction and chemicals, that face claims for continuous injury with roots in years past.

Listen as our authoritative panel of insurance attorneys examines the California court of appeal decision and its implications for insurance practice. The panel will offer their perspectives on best practices for addressing indemnity issues in long-term injury claims litigation.

READ MORE

Outline

  1. State of California v. Continental Insurance Co.
    1. Trial court ruling
    2. Court of Appeal (4th District) ruling and reasoning
  2. Implications of the ruling
    1. At odds with FMC Corp. v. Plaisted & Cos. (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 1998)
    2. Anti-stacking rule
    3. All-sums rule
    4. Court treatment of indemnity in other jurisdictions
  3. Best practices

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key questions:

  • What was the court's reasoning in rejecting the anti-stacking rule ascribed to by another California appellate court?
  • What are the implications of the decision for California litigants? Or those outside California?
  • What steps can policyholders take to recover damages under their insurance policies when facing long-term property damage or personal injuries claims?

Faculty

Roger W. Simpson
Roger W. Simpson
Shareholder
Cotkins & Collins

His principal area of practice is insurance coverage for environmental liability and he represented the state of...  |  Read More

Robert M. Horkovich
Robert M. Horkovich
Shareholder
Anderson Kill & Olick

He has substantial experience in trying complex insurance coverage actions for corporate policyholders. The Chambers...  |  Read More

William J. Baron
William J. Baron
Partner
Duane Morris

He concentrates on appellate work and complex civil litigation, including insurance coverage actions. He prepared an...  |  Read More

Access Anytime, Anywhere

Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include course handouts.

To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Audio