Crusader Ins. Co. v. Harry W. Gorst Co.
Filed 6/1/06 Crusader Ins. Co. v. Harry W. Gorst Co. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
| CRUSADER INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HARRY W. GORST COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Respondent. | B182480 (Super. Ct. No. LC 061368) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Richard B. Wolfe, Judge. Affirmed.
________
Law Office of Gerald Philip Peters and Gerald P. Peters; Terry Kinigstein for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Stone/Rosenblatt/Cha and Kristi W. Dean for Defendant and Respondent.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, James R. Woods, Todd L. Padnos and Richard A. Brown as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
_________
Crusader Insurance Company (Crusader) sued Harry W. Gorst Company, Inc. (Gorst) for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. Crusader prevailed on summary judgment and then moved for an award of attorneys' fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. The trial court denied the motion, and Crusader appealed. We affirm, because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Crusader failed to carry its burden of proving that this litigation has conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons.
BACKGROUND
Crusader is an admitted insurer in California. Gorst is a California-licensed surplus line broker (i.e., Gorst is licensed to place insurance with insurers who are not admitted in California). Gorst is a wholesale insurance broker, which means that Gorst places insurance with nonadmitted insurers upon the request of retail insurance brokers, who directly represent the insureds.
Crusader filed suit against Gorst in 2002, alleging a single cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200. The complaint alleged that Gorst has engaged in unlawful business practices by violating Insurance Code section 1763,[1] which regulates the activities of surplus line brokers. Crusader sought injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Section 1763 requires that before placing insurance with a nonadmitted insurer, a surplus line broker must first ensure that a diligent search is conducted among admitted insurers who write the particular type of insurance at issue, to determine whether the insurance can be obtained in the admitted market. The statute further provides that if three admitted insurers who write that particular type of insurance decline the risk, then that is prima facie evidence of a diligent search. The search and its results are recorded on a standardized form called an SL-2. And subdivision (c) of the statute provides that whenever a surplus line broker places insurance with a nonadmitted insurer at a premium lower than the lowest that could be obtained from an admitted insurer, the surplus line broker must file with the commissioner a statement explaining why the insurance was placed with a nonadmitted insurer even though it was available from an admitted insurer.
Crusader moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts showed that Gorst has repeatedly violated section 1763. Crusader argued that section 1763 prohibits Gorst from exporting insurance (i.e., placing it with a nonadmitted insurer) unless the insurance cannot be obtained from an admitted insurer, and that Gorst â€
