Plaintiff insured filed a motion for summary judgment, while defendant insurer filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, in connection with the insured’s action for a determination of the insurer’s duty to defend the insured in a suit against it. The insured was a defendant in an action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1001 et seq., in the denial of certain retirement plan benefits. Parties’ Los Angeles litigation lawyer appeal.
Table of Contents
Overview
The court concluded that because the lawsuit against the insured did not allege negligent acts, errors, or omissions, there was no duty to defend as a matter of law. Accordingly, the insurer was entitled to summary judgment in its favor. The court held that when the meaning of the insurance contract was clear and explicit, if the provisions on the duty to defend were interpreted in their ordinary and popular sense, that meaning controlled judicial interpretation of the policy. In the underlying action, the insured’s failure to provide retirement benefits was alleged to be a “coordinated” and “willful” act; there was no allegation of negligence. Therefore, the defense provisions of the insurance policy, which covered negligent acts, negligent errors, or negligent omissions, were not invoked. The court concluded by noting that because it had found in favor of the insurer as to the interpretations of the policy provisions regarding coverage, it did not need to address the exemptions raised by the insurer.
Outcome
The court denied the insured’s motion for summary judgment, granted the insurer’s cross-motion, and entered judgment in favor of the insurer on the insured’s action concerning the insurer’s duty to defend the insured in a currently pending action for ERISA violations.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-Concerning the failure to pay straight time wages, plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable defendants to defend themselves effectively, because plaintiff’s allegations were overly general and therefore precluded the court from making a plausible inference that defendants engaged in the alleged conduct during at least one workweek; [2]-Plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to show a failure to pay overtime, because the allegations failed to identify at least one workweek when he worked in excess of forty hours and was not paid overtime for that given workweek, and plaintiff failed to allege at least one meal or rest break where he worked through the break and was not paid for that time.
Outcome
Defendant’s motion to dismiss and or strike granted in part and denied in part.