Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Salesforce.com, Inc.

facts underlying the Texas litigation could support claims for negligence—indeed, the Texas plaintiffs originally brought negligence claims. Moreover, Salesforce, in defending itself in the Texas litigation, might be able to show that it acted only negligently and not intentionally or knowingly, which could also create a potential for coverage. See Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co., 65 Cal. 2d 263, 277 (1966). Travelers thus has a continuing duty to defend. The dismissal of this claim is without prejudice to Travelers seeking reimbursement of defense costs at the close of the Texas litigation. As to Travelers’ claims relating to indemnification and reimbursement, Salesforce is correct that these claims are premature because the Texas state court litigation has not yet concluded. See First Mercury Insurance Co. v. Great Divide Insurance Co., 203 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1053-54 (N.D. Cal. 2016); Tamrac, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association, 63 Cal. App. 4th 751, 759 (1998). Indeed, Salesforce would be entitled to a stay of Travelers’ indemnification claim because the factual question of whether Salesforce acted negligently, which is conduct covered under the insurance policy, or…