(Insurer's Anti-SLAPP Motion Denied Based on Alleged Fraud in Connection With Settlement of Claims)
(
Moldex's primary insurers defended Moldex until 2003 when the primary limits exhausted. Moldex's excess and umbrella insurers, including Federal, then began to defend Moldex. In 2004, Moldex discovered it was additionally insured under a primary policy issued by Truck. The Truck policy was lost, and it was not until 2004 that Moldex discovered its existence.
In 2007, Federal filed the first contribution action against Truck. In 2013, the court entered judgment against Truck awarding
In 2014, Truck filed a second reimbursement action against Federal seeking to establish its policy limits were exhausted. The trial court found Truck's primary policy was exhausted, and the
In 2019, Truck filed a third complaint against Federal alleging fraud. Truck argued Federal made statements in the previous litigation "in a manner so as to conceal the fact that Federal made a voluntary business decision to pay defense fees without any duty under its policy to do so." Federal filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing the terms and conditions of the Federal policy "were in plain sight," and Truck had a copy of the Federal umbrella policy since the initial litigation in 2007. While the anti-SLAPP motion was pending, Truck filed a First Amended Complaint. Federal's anti-SLAPP motion was denied by the trial court.
In ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion, the
There is no question that filing documents in court is petitioning activity protected by section 425.15, subdivision (e) [of the California Constitution for filing litigation].
Truck's complaint alleged its cause of action for fraud arises from Federal's positions taken in Federal's reimbursement action [in 2007]... Based on the foregoing, we find the principal thrust or gravamen of Truck's fraud cause of action is based on Federal's protected activity.
However, as to whether Truck had a probability of prevailing on the merits, the
Federal is mistaken in its belief that Truck "released the claim for which it now seeks damages" by signing the
The Court of Appeal also found the First Amended Complaint was not relevant to the review of the anti-SLAPP motion.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
Suite 4000
Tel: 2122501800
Fax: 2122507900
E-mail: media@lewisbrisbois.com
URL: www.lewisbrisbois.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source