Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Columbia Casualty Insurance

Good Law
11 Cal. App. 4th 1176·14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 643·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1461·92 Daily Journal DAR 17008·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10174
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 17, 1992Docket Nos. D013457, D014092California4,622 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

In this case we affirm summary judgments entered in favor of Coca Cola Bottling Company of San Diego (Coca Cola) and the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) and against Columbia Casualty Insurance Co. (Columbia). Like the trial court, we find Columbia’s excess liability policy “drops down” to cover a risk for which an insolvent insurer had issued a policy. As we explain in greater detail below, we believe this outcome is mandated by two Supreme Court opinions, Reserve Insurance Co. v. Pisciotta (1982) 30 Cal.3d 800, 814 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 628 , 640 P.2d 764 ] (Pisciotta) and AIU Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 807, 821-822 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 820 , 799 P.2d 1253 ] (AIU).

Factual and Procedural History

1. The Policies

Coca Cola is a wholly owned subsidiary of Beatrice Company (Beatrice). In late 1984 Beatrice purchased Esmark, Inc. (Esmark). For the calendar year beginning October 1, 1984, Esmark purchased a series of insurance policies which provided Esmark with $200 million in general liability coverage. As of March 1, 1985, Beatrice and its subsidiaries, including Coca Cola, became the named insureds under the Esmark policies.

Beatrice/Esmark’s…

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.