This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Insurance
Real Property
Construction Defect

Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Centex Homes, Centex Real Estate Corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

Published: Feb. 7, 2015 | Result Date: Jan. 5, 2015 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:14-cv-02378-SC Bench Decision –  Dismissed

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

A. Eric Aguilera
(Aguilera Law Group APLC)


Defendant

Jared De Jong

Kelby Van Patten
(Payne & Fears LLP)

Jeffrey M. Hayes


Facts

Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. sued Centex Homes and Centex Real Estate Corp., involving an insurance dispute.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that in January 2014, several homeowners sued Centex for construction defects. Centex then tendered the underlying action to plaintiffs as an additional insured under the policies plaintiffs issued to Golden State Carpet Service Inc. and Mike McCall Landscape Inc. Plaintiffs agreed to defend Centex under a reservation of rights, and appointed a counsel of its choice. In response, Centex retained an independent counsel and insisted plaintiffs pay the independent counsel's fees, and threatened to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel. In response, plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and equitable reimbursement. Plaintiffs argued that Centex had no right to control the defense or a right to retain independent counsel and that it breached its duty to cooperate. Plaintiffs also claimed that Centex's appointment of counsel constituted a voluntary payment for which plaintiffs were not under obligation to reimburse.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Centex contended that the case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Centex also argued that plaintiffs lacked a cognizable claim.

Result

The district court granted Centex's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' breach of contract and equitable reimbursement claims because the claims were not ripe for adjudication. Additionally, plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief was also not ripe. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims without prejudice.

Other Information

FILING DATE: May 22, 2014.


#91129

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390