San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District v. General Reinsurance Corp.

Good Law
111 F. Supp. 3d 1055·2015 WL 3902336·80 Cal. Comp. Cases 712·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82242
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 24, 2015Case No. 14-cv-01866-JSCCalifornia8,978 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Corley, J.

OPINION RE: PHASE ONE BENCH TRIAL

Defendant General Reinsurance Corporation (“General Reinsurance”) issued an excess insurance policy to Plaintiff San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (“BART”), which is a self-insured employer for workers’ compensation. This dispute arisés out of a multiple myeloma workers’ compensation claim of a former BART employee, Michael Gonsolin (“Gonsolin”), which BART settled with Gonsolin before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (“WC Appeals Board”). BART contends that General Reinsurance is obligated to pay the claim because, as stipulated by the parties before the WC Appeals Board, and found by the WC Appeals Board, Gonsolin’s injury occurred during the policy period, and BART has reached its retention limit triggering General Reinsurance’s coverage. General Reinsurance contends that it has no obligation to pay because Gonsolin’s injury in fact occurred after its policy had ended.

The parties agreed to resolve their dispute in a bench trial based upon stipulated facts. In Phase One the Court must decide whether the parties can litigate the date of injury; that is, whether for purposes of the application of the excess policy, General…

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.