CDM Investors v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.

This matter has been transferred here from the Supreme Court (S120680) with directions to vacate our previous decision and to reconsider the cause in light of Powerine Oil Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 37 Cal.4th 377 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 562 , 118 P.3d 589 ] (Powerine II), and County of San Diego v. Ace Property & Casualty Ins. Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 406 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 , 118 P.3d 607 ] (Ace). In our earlier opinion, we affirmed a judgment that resulted from orders sustaining demurrers to a complaint seeking insurance coverage. We held that the relevant insurance policy language did not provide coverage for “response costs” incurred pursuant to an administrative order. Powerine II held that certain insurance policy language was broad enough to include coverage for response costs. Ace addressed materially different language and reached a contrary conclusion. The parties have filed supplemental briefs. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 29.3(f), 13(b).) We hereby vacate our previous decision.

In this insurance coverage action, plaintiffs CDM Investors and Ralph Borelli appeal from a judgment that resulted after the trial court sustained the demurrers of defendants Travelers…