Fear Not Law Articles: CDM Investors et al. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. et al

CDM Investors et al

CDM Investors et al. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. et al

Filed 5/26/06 (opn. on rehearing)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CDM INVESTORS et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY CO. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

H024142

(Santa Clara County

Super. Ct. No. CV791029)

This matter has been transferred here from the Supreme Court (S120680) with directions to vacate our previous decision (published as CDM Investors v. American National Fire Ins. Co. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 791) and to reconsider the cause in light of Powerine Oil Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 37 Cal.4th 377 (Powerine II), and County of San Diego v. Ace Property & Casualty Ins. Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 406 (Ace). In our earlier opinion, we affirmed a judgment that resulted from orders sustaining demurrers to a complaint seeking insurance coverage. We held that the relevant insurance-policy language did not provide coverage for â€

Description	Standard form CGL policy that included absolute pollution exclusion did not provide coverage for response costs incurred pursuant to an administrative order that charged insureds with being suspected dischargers of pollutants causing damage to soil and groundwater. Phrase "ultimate net loss," used in reference to what amount the insurer will pay after the insurer becomes obligated to pay rather than as a trigger of the insurer's obligation to pay, does not broaden coverage beyond damages as defined elsewhere in policy. Insurer has no duty to defend affirmative defenses raised by parties sued by insured.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.