Stryker

Stryker v. Steadfast Insurance CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 7, 2022C089374California2,471 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

A December 2009 lawsuit by multiple homeowners alleged defective construction of their homes by developers Cambridge (Natomas), LP, and Cambridge Communities, LLC (Cambridge). Cambridge was insured by Steadfast under a policy that included a self-insured retention of $1 million per occurrence. After a June 2014 bench trial for which Cambridge did not appear, the trial court entered judgment against Cambridge for over $4 million. In 2017, the homeowners filed the instant action against Steadfast, alleging the company had a duty to defend and indemnify Cambridge in the underlying lawsuit, and that, as judgment creditors and assignees of Cambridge, they were entitled to recover from Steadfast a significant balance that remained on the 2014 judgment. They asserted multiple causes of action, the specifics of which are immaterial to this appeal. Steadfast moved for summary judgment, arguing as a matter of law that it never had to defend or indemnify Cambridge because Cambridge never paid the self-insured retention, a condition precedent to coverage. The homeowners opposed summary judgment, arguing that payment of the self-insured retention was not a condition precedent to…

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.