Ortega Rock Quarry v. Golden Eagle Insurance

Good Law
141 Cal. App. 4th 969·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1153·2006 Daily Journal DAR 9826·46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 517·2006 A.M.C. 2004
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 27, 2006E037906California7,148 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hollenhorst, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs and Appellants Ortega Rock Quarry, Jay Hubbs, and John Schmutz (sometimes referred to collectively as Ortega) appeal from judgment following the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and respondents Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Continental Casualty Company, and Valley Forge Insurance Company (sometimes referred to collectively as the insurers). Ortega made claims against the insurers for a defense and indemnity for an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) order and corresponding civil lawsuit. The insurers relied on pollution exclusions in the policies to deny coverage, and Ortega brought a lawsuit for breach of contract and other claims. The trial court granted summary judgment and summary adjudication in favor of the insurers, and Ortega has appealed. Ortega contends that the trial court erred in determining that (1) the insurers had no duty to defend Ortega because the EPA proceedings were not a “suit” within the scope of the policies; (2) the pollution exclusion endorsements in the insurance policies excluded coverage for Ortega’s claims; and (3) Ortega’s acts were willful…

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.