The Home Insurance v. Superior Court

Good Law
2005 Cal. LEXIS 17·2005 Daily Journal DAR 525·22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885·34 Cal. 4th 1025·103 P.3d 283
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 2005No. S110328California4,666 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

George, J.

After federal and state authorities brought several actions against real party in interest Montrose Chemical Corporation of California (Montrose Chemical), seeking recovery for environmental damage allegedly caused by its operations at several sites, Montrose Chemical filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief against its primary insurance carriers to establish their duties to defend or indemnify pursuant to the operative commercial general liability policies. One of the defendant primary insurance carriers invoked Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, permitting the exercise of one challenge against the assigned trial judge by each “side” in the litigation, *1029 and the case was reassigned to a new trial judge. 1 Eventually, the parties entered into settlement agreements, and the primary insurance carrier defendants were dismissed from the action.

Montrose Chemical amended its complaint to name as a defendant its “excess” insurance carrier, The Home Insurance Company (Home Insurance), which also invoked section 170.6 in attempting to exercise a challenge against the trial judge. After objection by Montrose Chemical to this attempted challenge, the trial judge ordered…

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.