Starstone National Insurance Company v. Golf Argonomics Supply & Handling Co., Golf Agronomics Sand & Hauling, Inc., and Amber Chafin, individually and in her capacity as legal and natural guardian of her minor sons J.S. and J.R.

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses StarStone National Insurance Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a declaratory insurance coverage action arising from a motor vehicle accident. The court recommends granting the motion, concluding that StarStone’s excess policy’s broad automobile exclusion bars coverage for liability arising from the accident, including negligence claims and arguments under the concurrent cause doctrine.

Holdings

1. The StarStone excess policy's automobile exclusion was unambiguous and controlled over the differing automobile exclusion in the followed Wilshire policy. It excluded liability, damages, losses, costs, and expenses arising out of the use of any automobile, including the accident involving Chafin and Welker.
2. The concurrent cause doctrine did not preserve coverage because the alleged negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention, and contractor-selection acts were related to and dependent on the automobile accident rather than separate and distinct insured risks.
3. StarStone had no duty to defend the underlying action because its excess policy expressly stated that StarStone would not be required to assume responsibility for investigating claims or defending suits. Because there was no duty to defend, there was likewise no duty to indemnify.

Questions Presented

1. Whether StarStone's excess-policy automobile exclusion unambiguously barred coverage for liability, damages, losses, costs, or expenses arising out of the August 2020 automobile accident.
2. Whether the concurrent cause doctrine preserved coverage for alleged negligent hiring, training, supervision, retention, or contractor-selection claims in addition to the automobile-related cause of injury.
3. Whether StarStone had a duty to defend or indemnify the insureds under the excess policy.
4. Whether the lack of allocation in the underlying consent judgments independently defeated the coverage claim.

Disposition

other