Richbell v. Executive Risk Indemnity
This is an insurance coverage dispute concerning an insurers duty to defend a lawsuit by one insured (the former employee of an insured entity) against other insured entities, including the former employer. The liability insurance policy at issue excludes coverage for lawsuits between insureds, but excepts from the exclusion retaliatory treatment against an employee . . . on account of such employees exercise or attempted exercise of his or her rights under law. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the insurer, defendant and respondent Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. (defendant), after concluding that the policy exclusion for lawsuits between insureds barred coverage of the underlying action, and that plaintiffs failed to present a triable issue of material fact as to whether the underlying lawsuit was potentially covered under the policy exception for retaliatory treatment against an employee.
In this appeal, the insureds, plaintiffs and appellants Richbell, LLC (Richbell) Richbell III, LLC (Richbell III), the Greenwich Group International, LLC (Greenwich), Greenwich Brokerage Services, Inc., and Simon Mild (Mild) (collectively, plaintiffs) contend that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether the underlying lawsuit alleged retaliatory treatment against an employee, thereby triggering defendants defense obligations under the policy. Plaintiffs further contend the trial court abused its discretion by disregarding declarations they submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. They argue that the declarations attest to retaliatory acts potentially covered under the policy.
Court affirm the judgment. Defendant owed no duty to defend the underlying lawsuit, which was excluded from coverage under the policy by the provision barring coverage for lawsuits between insureds. Plaintiffs raised no triable issue of material fact as to whether the underlying claims were for retaliatory treatment against an employee excepted from that exclusion and potentially covered under the policy. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by disregarding plaintiffs evidence of previously undisclosed facts purportedly establishing a potential for coverage, but not known to defendant at the time the third party lawsuit was tendered.
Comments on Richbell v. Executive Risk Indemnity