Supervalu, Inc. v. Wexford Underwriting Managers, Inc.

Bad Law
175 Cal. App. 4th 64
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 24, 2009B206501California7,268 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ashmlann-Gerst, J.

The issue presented is the interpretation of the word “occurrence” in the excess workers’ compensation policies provided to appellant Supervalu, Inc., doing business as Albertson’s, Inc. (Supervalu), by respondents TIG Insurance Company (TIG), Continental Casualty Company (Continental) and Wexford Underwriting Managers, Inc. (Wexford) (collectively respondents). The trial court concluded that Supervalu was required to pay a self-insured retention every time an employee sustained injury due to an accident or occupational disease. It granted summary adjudication in favor of TIG and Continental and summary judgment in favor of Wexford. The parties dismissed their remaining claims without prejudice in order to facilitate this appeal. Supervalu appeals on the following grounds: (1) in the workers’ compensation industry, “occurrence” means a claim that results in one award or compromise and release regardless of the number of injuries involved, and this technical meaning controls interpretation of the insurance policies; (2) Continental and TIG are estopped from asserting a new interpretation, i.e., that an award or compromise and release is not a single occurrence because it…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.