Supervalu v. Wexford Underwriting
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 6/24/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SUPERVALU, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, B206501 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC076533) v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION WEXFORD UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, INC., et al., [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] Defendants and Respondents. THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 3, 2009, be modified as follows: 1. On page 3, the second sentence of the first full paragraph, the word in is to be inserted between the words the same as and the TIG policies so that the sentence reads: The self-insured retention and coverage were essentially the same as in the TIG policies. 2. On page 5, the second sentence of the second full paragraph, line 3, the words two new are deleted so that the sentence reads: The proposed pleading alleged a new claim against TIG for refusing to pay benefits, and claims against Wexford for failing to disclose Continental s intention to change its interpretation of the policy language and for failing to report claims to TIG and Continental. 3. On page 5, third full paragraph, third sentence, before the sentence beginning Continental waived all issues add To overcome some procedural deficiencies in its motion so that the sentence is modified to read as follows: To overcome some procedural deficiencies in its motion, Continental waived all issues set forth in its declaratory relief cause of action with the exception of the meaning of the word occurrence. 4. The paragraph commencing at the bottom of page 6 with Supervalu argues that and continuing at the top of page 7 with from asserting a new is modified to read as follows: Supervalu argues that the phrase per occurrence in the policies refers to a claim which results in one award or compromise and release; Continental and TIG are estopped from asserting a new interpretation; the trial court erred when it granted TIG s motion for summary adjudication as to Lecky; the trial court s ruling as to Continental was procedurally improper; Wexford should not be immunized from liability; prejudgment interest cannot accrue during the time a creditor prevents payment of the debt; and the trial court should have allowed Supervalu to amend to allege negligent misrepresentation against Wexford. We turn to these issues. There is no change in the judgment. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
