Alpha Holdings v. Travelers Indemnity
Filed 7/13/06 Alpha Holdings v. Travelers Indemnity CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| ALPHA HOLDINGS, LTD., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B180906 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC285510) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, James R. Dunn, Judge. Reversed.
Alleguez & Associates, Inc., Tina M. Alleguez; Bowman and Brooke, Brian Takahashi and Robert S. Robinson for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Peterson & Bradford, Ronald J. Skocypec and Lisa Kralik Hansen for Defendant and Respondent Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
Morison-Knox Holden & Prough, William C. Morison, Marc J. Derewetzky and Tom K. Hammitt for Defendant and Respondent Travelers Indemnity Company.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a declaratory relief action involving insurance coverage under a vendor's endorsement purporting to provide protection against product liability litigation. Plaintiff, Alpha Holdings, Ltd., formerly known as Omega Products, Inc., appeals from a judgment in favor of defendants Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers) and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Liberty). The trial court granted defendants' summary judgment motions. We conclude defendants failed to establish as a matter of law there was no coverage and therefore no potential for indemnity. We reverse the judgment.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Defective Hoses
Plaintiff was formed in August 1989 and always assembled inlet hoses for washing machines. In January 1991, plaintiff began to supply hose to Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool). Plaintiff purchased the hose from Dayco Products Inc. (Dayco) in 750 foot lengths. The hose was delivered in a truck with 312,000 feet of hose to a truckload. Plaintiff did not change the chemical composition of the hose provided by Dayco. Nor did plaintiff change the performance characteristics of the hose. However, according to William Lentz, plaintiff's founder: the hose was cut to lengths specified by Whirlpool; coupling assemblies were attached to the hose; the coupling assemblies consisted of â€
