Haskins
Haskins v. Employers Insurance of Wausau
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Tigar, J.
ORDER 1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court are cross-motions for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs Richard E. Haskins, Arthur L. Haskins, and the estate of Arthur “Buzz” Haskins, Jr. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek summary judgment that Defendant Employers Insurance of Wausau (“Wausau”) breached its duty to defend them against a counter *1119 claim filed against them in -an underlying environmental cleanup action. Wausau seeks summary judgment that it did not breach its duty to defend. Because the Court concludes that Wausau satisfied its duty to defend by settling all claims against Plaintiffs, it mil deny Plaintiffs’ motion and grant Wausau’s motion.
I. Background
A. Factual Background
Plaintiffs own commercial property in South San Francisco. Haskins v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, No. 14-CV-01671-JST, 2015 WL 831184 , at *1 (N.D.Cal. Feb. 23, 2015). Wausau provided Plaintiffs with policies covering comprehensive general liability insurance for this property from 1958 to 1986 (“the policy”). Id. Cherokee Acquisition Corp., Cherokee San Francisco LLC, and Cherokee Grand…