• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues / COURT BINDS INSURER TO ARBITRATION AWARD EVEN THOUGH NOT A PARTY TO THE ARBITRATION AND IT HAD NO DUTY TO DEFEND

COURT BINDS INSURER TO ARBITRATION AWARD EVEN THOUGH NOT A PARTY TO THE ARBITRATION AND IT HAD NO DUTY TO DEFEND

April 14, 2009 by Carlton Fields

On February 20, 2009, the California Court of Appeals handed down an opinion considering whether an arbitration award and resulting judgment could be considered a “loss” under the terms of an insurance policy. This action arose out of an insurance agreement issued by Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. (“ERII”) to STARS Holding Company (“STARS”). A former client (“Jones”) of STARS initiated an arbitration proceeding against the firm for faulty investment advice. Though it was aware of the proceedings, ERII chose not to participate in the arbitration. An award was levied against STARS, and the California Court of Appeals determined that ERII was bound by that decision. This appeal arose out of the ensuing coverage action between Jones (to whom STARS assigned its rights under the underlying insurance policy) and ERII.

The court determined that because ERII was bound by the results of the arbitration proceeding between its insured, STARS, and the injured party, Jones, it could not now contest the validity of STARS’s liability to Jones or the amount of damages established by the judgment. The court concluded that “when an insurer (1) is duly notified of the underlying claim against the insured; and (2) is given a full opportunity to protect its interests, the resulting judgment – if obtained without fraud or collusion – is binding against the insurer in any later coverage litigation on the claim involving its insured.” This rule applied despite the fact that ERII had no contractual duty to defend under the indemnity-only policy at issue. Thus, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine if ERII was required to indemnify STARS. Executive Risk Indem., Inc. v. Jones, Case No. 05-444352 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2009).

This post written by John Black.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, Week's Best Posts

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.