Truck Ins. Exchange v. Fed. Ins. Co.

INTRODUCTION

California law does not require one insurer to contribute to or reimburse another insurer who makes a voluntary payment. (See OneBeacon America Ins. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 183, 199–200; see Truck Ins. Exchange v. Unigard Ins. Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 966, 974; see also Civ. Code, § 1432.) This is the third case involving two insurance carriers arguing whether one was required to reimburse the other for defense costs expended under an umbrella policy for the insured. Appellant Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck) argues that the settlement it reached with Federal Insurance Company (Federal) to end the first litigation in 2013 was procured by Federal’s fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. Federal did not disclose it had no duty to pay the insured’s defense fees but had made a business decision to do so “at its option.” Truck argues it would have never agreed to pay $4.9 million in settlement had it known Federal contributed to the insured’s defense voluntarily “at its own expense.” On appeal, Truck contends the trial court addressed the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation but failed to address the fraudulent concealment claim.…