AICCO v. Ins. Co. of North America

Filed 5/10/06 AICCO v. Ins. Co. of North America CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

AICCO, INC. et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, A110367

v. (San Francisco County

Super. Ct. No. 308869)

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH

AMERICA et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

______________________________________/

AICCO, Inc., Granite State Insurance Company, and Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Company appeal contending the trial court erred when it applied statutory changes mandated by Proposition 64 and dismissed their complaint alleging violations of the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.)^[1] for lack of standing. We conclude the trial court ruled correctly and will affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

We have dealt with this case before and will provide an abbreviated background taken primarily from our prior published opinion.^[2]

Insurance Company of North America (INA), is the oldest stock insurance company in the United States. Over the course of its history, INA has sold billions of dollars of asbestos and environmental (A&E) insurance to consumers in California and elsewhere.

INA's A&E coverage was unprofitable for the company. Therefore INA's corporate parents, CIGNA Corporation and INA Financial, developed a plan for INA to shed its obligations under the A&E policies it had written.

INA was incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania. That state has statutes that permit corporate â€