Insurer Should Get Premium for Waiver of Subrogation
Barry Zalma
Oct 5, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/g7Sbh7Jp and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvzb8SdX and at https://lnkd.in/g6N-AUFH and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4650 posts.
Evanston Insurance appealed from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and against Evanston Insurance Company (Evanston) as to Evanston’s claims for equitable subrogation, equitable indemnity, restitution, and declaratory relief.
In Evanston Insurance Company v. Southern California Edison Company, B320392, California Court of Appeals, (September 29, 2023) Evanston contributed $25 million to settle claims by property owners against its insured, The Original Mowbray’s Tree Service, Inc. (Mowbray’s), which was a subcontractor of Utility Tree Service, Inc. (UTS) under UTS’s contract with SCE to manage certain vegetation proximate to SCE’s equipment.
According to Evanston, the property owners’ claims arose out of a wildfire they alleged was caused by a tree hitting power lines that were owned and operated by SCE. Evanston asserted that the wildfire resulted solely from SCE’s negligence.
In its motion for summary judgment, SCE argued that the following waiver provision in Mowbray’s subcontract with UTS barred Evanston’s claims: “Subcontractor [(Mowbray’s)] waives and will require all of its insurers to waive all rights of recovery against Contractor [(UTS)] or the Owner [(SCE)], their affiliates, their directors, officers and employees, whether in contract, tort (including negligence and strict liability) or otherwise.” The trial court agreed and entered judgment in SCE’s favor.
On appeal, Evanston contended the waiver provision is ambiguous and that the trial court erred in failing to analyze separately whether SCE’s waiver defense applied to Evanston’s equitable indemnity and restitution causes of action. Regardless, the Court of Appeals concluded that the plain language and context of the waiver provision demonstrated that the provision unambiguously precludes Evanston’s equitable subrogation claim against SCE.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In February 2015, a wildland fire ignited in Bishop, California on property owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Round Fire). Evanston alleged that property owners and their subrogated insurers filed at least 10 lawsuits in the aftermath of the Round Fire to recover damages. Evanston asserts that the plaintiffs in the lead action (underlying action) alleged that the fire was caused by a tree (subject tree) that contacted power lines owned and operated by SCE.
The subcontractor agreement included the obligation to carry $41 million per occurrence in insurance coverage.
Evanston alleged that during the underlying action, SCE, which claimed to be an additional insured under the policy, repeatedly threatened to bring a bad faith action if Evanston did not pay the full amount of the policy and it under pressure agreed to contribute the $25 million policy limit to a settlement and reserved its rights to pursue full recovery from SCE ignoring the waiver provision of the contract and Evanston’s policy wording.
The trial court heard and granted SCE’s motion for summary judgment.
APPLICABLE INSURANCE LAW
A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness. Evanston bore the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness accorded to the trial court’s decision, regardless of the applicable standard of review.
APPLICABLE SUBROGATION PRINCIPLES
In the case of insurance, subrogation takes the form of an insurer’s right to be put in the position of the insured in order to pursue recovery from third parties legally responsible to the insured for a loss which the insurer has both insured and paid.
An insured’s contractual waiver defeats an insurer’s subrogation claim.
DISCUSSION
The waiver provision at issue appears in exhibit B of the agreement, which is a two-page document entitled “Insurance.” On the first page and under the subheading “Subcontractor’s Insurance” (boldface & underscoring omitted), the subcontract required the “Subcontractor” to “obtain and maintain” certain specified “policies of insurance ….” It provided that the subcontractor waived all of its rights against SCE and that its insurer agreed to the waiver.
The context of the waiver provision supports the conclusion that it encompasses claims against SCE that Mowbray’s would otherwise have been able to transfer to its insurers. In sum the plain language of the waiver provision unambiguously foreclosed Evanston’s equitable subrogation claim against SCE.
The waiver provision was presumably available for Evanston’s review when it underwrote the insurance policy for Mowbray’s and it agreed to support the waiver.
Because The Waiver Provision Is Unambiguous, The Court Rejected Evanston’s Arguments Supporting Its Construction Of The Provision
When a dispute arises over the meaning of contract language, the first question to be decided is whether the language is “reasonably susceptible” to the interpretation urged by the party. If it is not, the case is over. Because the Court of Appeals concluded for the reasons set forth above that the waiver provision’s reference to “all rights of recovery against Contractor or the Owner” unambiguously included Evanston’s equitable subrogation rights against SCE.
The judgment was affirmed. Respondent Southern California Edison Company is awarded its costs on appeal.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurers like Evanston issuing general liability policies often, if not invariably, agree to waive the insurer’s right to subrogation. Evanston’s policy allowed for the waiver and had no more rights than its insured who had waived the right by a clear and unambiguous contract and caused its insurer, Evanston, to include the waiver. Evanston tried to change the meaning of the contract on appeal but was unable to explain why it had agreed to the waiver before the issuance of the policy.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe or at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
Daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – http://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYkxD
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
It is a Crime to Lie to Your Insurer That Accident Happened After Policy Inception
Post number 5386
Posted on July 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Conviction for Fraud Affirmed Because Evidence Overwhelming
In State Of Washington v. Saleem Mumin Robinson, No. 87244-3-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1 (June 29, 2026) Saleem Robinson was involved in an automobile collision on May 18, 2021. The other driver, Mohamed Waggeh, photographed Robinson’s documents and later reported the collision to GEICO, identifying the time as approximately 12:40 p.m.
That same day, at 6:06 p.m., more than five hours after the accident, Robinson purchased Progressive insurance for the vehicle involved in the collision.
The next morning, Robinson called Progressive to report the claim and stated that the accident occurred around 6:15 p.m. Progressive recorded that call without advising Robinson that it was being recorded. Progressive later conducted a special investigative unit investigation the claim because it was submitted shortly ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
Deprive Insurer of the Ability to Properly and Timely Investigate Claim & Recover Nothing
Posted on July 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5385
No Contract Claim No Bad Faith Claim
In South Alexander Development I, LLC v.Markel American Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 23-1436-JWD-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (June 24, 2026) South Alexander Development I, LLC (SADI) owned and operated a solar farm in Springfield, Louisiana that allegedly sustained significant Hurricane Ida damage.
After SADI submitted a claim, MAIC ultimately paid $1,099,614.02 for undisputed physical damage plus the $210,000 income-loss policy limit. SADI later sued for breach of contract and statutory bad faith, contending MAIC failed to fully investigate and adjust the claim; MAIC sought summary judgment, arguing SADI failed to cooperate and withheld material repair-cost information.
LAW:
Louisiana insurance policies are interpreted as contracts according to their plain meaning, and the insured bears the burden ...
