Stryker v. Steadfast Ins. Co. CA3
After homeowners in a Sacramento County residential development won a judgment against the developer of their homes for over $4 million, they sued Steadfast Insurance Company (Steadfast), the developer’s insurer, alleging Steadfast had a duty to defend and indemnify the developer in the underlying lawsuit, and that, as judgment creditors and assignees of the developer, homeowners were entitled to recover from Steadfast. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Steadfast, ruling the company had no duty to defend or indemnify the developer in the underlying lawsuit because the developer never paid the “self-insured retention” (also known as an SIR), a condition precedent to Steadfast’s obligations to the developer under a Home Builders Protective Insurance Policy (the policy). On appeal, homeowners argue satisfaction of the self-insured retention was not a condition precedent.
Comments on Stryker v. Steadfast Ins. Co. CA3