B & E Convalescent Center v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 913·8 Cal. App. 4th 78·9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 894·92 Daily Journal DAR 10010·57 Cal. Comp. Cases 497
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 17, 1992B056936California9,940 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

B & E Convalescent Center (B & E) appeals from the summary judgment entered against it and in favor of defendant and respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) on B & E’s action for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and insurance bad faith. The sole issue on appeal is whether, as a matter of law, State Fund was obligated to defend B & E for the claims asserted in an action brought by Dorothy Bryson (Bryson), a former employee of B & E, in which she alleged wrongful termination and related causes of action, including a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.; FEHA).

As the employee’s claims in the underlying action against the insured employer consist solely of willful misconduct involving the intentional termination of the employee in violation of fundamental and substantial public policies, including those expressed in California’s antidiscrimination statutes, there is no potential for coverage under the employer’s liability policy because Insurance Code section 533 precludes any duty to indemnify. Under such circumstances and in the absence of any contrary provisions in the policy, the insured employer can have…

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.