A California state appellate court recently upheld summary judgment in favor of an insurer in a dispute about the value of fine art paintings over the insured’s attempts to pierce the insurer’s corporate veil. In the course of litigation against XL Specialty and related entities, the Hollanders alleged that XL Capital, the insurer’s parent company, operated as the alter ego of the other entities and operated as a single enterprise. The trial court had previously denied several defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the alter ego, agency, and related liability theories, but those defendants renewed their motion on the grounds that new facts had arisen. Specifically, there was new information concerning XL Specialty’s assets which allegedly doomed the Hollanders’ ability to prove the insurer was incapable of paying a judgment; proof which would satisfy the “inequitable result” element required to pierce the corporate. After the trial court’s initial grant of the renewed motion was appealed and remanded on other grounds, the trial court again granted the motion and this appeal followed.
In its second review of the case, the appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment. First, the court found the Hollanders failed to present sufficient evidence (through proper expert witness testimony) that XL Specialty’s assets were inadequate to satisfy a potential judgment or to support their claims for emotional distress and punitive damages. It concluded the expert testimony proffered was “only unsupported and unexplained conjecture” about XL Specialty’s solvency. Even less sufficient were the Hollanders’ claims for emotional distress, supported by “absolutely no evidence,” and punitive damages, a discretionary award for which the lack of evidence fell far short of the clear and convincing evidence required.
Second, the court upheld the decision regarding the agency theory because the Hollanders failed to prove that XL Capital dominated and controlled the activity of its subsidiaries. The Hollanders showed the various defendants shared an employee, but that showing alone was insufficient to prove agency of XL Capital where there was no evidence about other employees, the senior leadership of the companies, or the shared employee inappropriately mixing roles for the respective companies. The Hollanders attempted to demonstrate shared profits and losses by highlighting reinsurance agreements, but failed to show any of the defendants were members or parties to the reinsurance pooling and quota share agreements. Finally, the fact that the defendants shared administrative service agreements did not show agency where there was no right to control or any demonstrated impact by the agreements on day-to-day management of the companies.
Thus, the court affirmed the summary judgment as to the alter ego/single enterprise and agency theories of liability because the Hollanders failed to present triable issues of fact on the legal elements of those theories.
Hollander v. XL Capital, Ltd., Case No. B276621 (Cal. App. Ct. May 1, 2018).
This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .
See our disclaimer.