Schofield

Republic Indemnity Co. v. Schofield

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 654·47 Cal. App. 4th 220·54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 637·96 Daily Journal DAR 8211·71 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 589
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 5, 1996A070851California2,671 words

Opinion

Opinion

Parrilli, J.

Does an employer’s liability policy designating a corporation as the sole named insured automatically extend “named insured” status to the corporation’s officers, directors and employees? We conclude it does not.

Appellants filed a cross-complaint against Republic Indemnity Company of America (Republic) and others for breach of insurance contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Republic on the ground appellants were not “named insureds” within the meaning of the Republic policies. We agree with this conclusion and affirm the judgment.

I

Facts

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the parties opposing summary judgment (Gibb v. Stetson (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1008, 1011 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 283 ]), the record discloses the following.

Appellants Louis F. Schofield, Howard L. Churchill and Keith S. Schiller (appellants) are attorneys. They were formerly officers and/or directors of Bumhill, Morehouse, Burford, Schofield & Schiller, Inc., a professional law corporation (Bumhill-Morehouse). Appellants left Bumhill-Morehouse and formed their own partnership, Schofield & Schiller. Chris W.…

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.