{"id":199,"date":"2016-05-06T17:20:43","date_gmt":"2016-05-06T21:20:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/?p=199"},"modified":"2016-05-06T17:21:22","modified_gmt":"2016-05-06T21:21:22","slug":"parent-of-insured-corporation-has-no-standing-to-seek-declaratory-relief-as-to-insureds-coverage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/2016\/05\/06\/parent-of-insured-corporation-has-no-standing-to-seek-declaratory-relief-as-to-insureds-coverage\/","title":{"rendered":"Parent of Insured Corporation Has No Standing to Seek Declaratory Relief as to Insured’s Coverage"},"content":{"rendered":"

Does the parent and controlling shareholder of an insured corporation have standing to seek declaratory relief as to the insured\u2019s insurance coverage? Under California law, the answer is no. In a March 30, 2016 decision, ordered published April 28, 2016, Division Two of the California Court of Appeal for the First District held that a parent corporation that is not an insured under the insurance contract is not a \u201cperson interested under a written instrument\u201d for purposes of California\u2019s declaratory relief statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1060. (See D. Cummins Corp. v. Untied States Fid. and Guar. Co<\/em>., __Cal.App.4th__ (Cal. Court of Appeal, First Dist. No. A142985, 4\/28\/2016).)<\/p>\n

The Holding Company in the case was\u00a0the controlling owner of an insured facing asbestos claims, but the Holding Company was not an additional insured or otherwise in privity with the insurer. Nonetheless, the Holding Company argued it had a \u201cpractical interest in the proper interpretation of Cummins Corp.\u2019s insurance policies given its relationship to, and its central role in the pursuit of those insurance assets.\u201d (Slip Opn. p. 7.) The Court of Appeal found the argument \u201cnot persuasive.\u201d (Id.) \u201cWhile Holding Co. may, as it says, have a ‘practical interest’ in the success of Cummins Corp.\u2019s litigation with the insurers by virtue of its relationship with the corporation, it has not shown how that indirect interest\u2014no matter how enthusiastic it may be [citation omitted]\u2014translates into \u2018a legally cognizable theory of declaratory relief.\u2019\u201d (Id.) It is only the insured itself that has \u201ca direct interest in the interpretation of the policies in question\u201d for purposes of Section 1060.\u00a0(Id.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Does the parent and controlling shareholder of an insured corporation have standing to seek declaratory relief as to the insured\u2019s insurance coverage? Under California law, the answer is no. In a March 30, 2016 decision, ordered published April 28, 2016, Division Two of the California Court of Appeal for the First District held that a … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Parent of Insured Corporation Has No Standing to Seek Declaratory Relief as to Insured’s Coverage”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":37,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[30,326,75,327,325,12,33],"ppma_author":[411],"class_list":["post-199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-asbestos","tag-california-code-civil-procedure-1060","tag-california-court-of-appeal","tag-cummins","tag-declaratory-relief","tag-insurance","tag-paul-killion"],"authors":[{"term_id":411,"user_id":37,"is_guest":0,"slug":"pjkillion","display_name":"Paul J. Killion","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2014\/08\/killionpaul-125x150.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Killion","first_name":"Paul J.","job_title":"","user_url":"http:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/pauljkillion.html","description":"Paul Killion is a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris and a appellate specialist certified by the State Bar of California. Read Paul's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/37"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}