# County of San Diego v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance

> California Supreme Court · August 29, 2005 · 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 583

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788515

## Case

- **Full name:** COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Cross-Complainant and Appellant, v. ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY Et al.L Cross-Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 29, 2005
- **Citations:** 33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 583; 37 Cal. 4th 406; 2005 Daily Journal DAR 10554; 118 P.3d 607; 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7798; 2005 Cal. LEXIS 9548
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Kennard
- **Judges:** Baxter, Werdegar, Moreno, Kennard
- **Cited by:** 73 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788515

## Opinion text

KENNARD, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
In my dissenting opinion in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 945, 975 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , 16 P.3d 94 ], I explained why, in my view, the word “damages” in a standard comprehensive general liability insurance policy’s indemnity provision does not refer only to judgments rendered in judicial proceedings but includes also the costs of complying with an administrative order to mitigate and remediate the effects of environmental pollution. Although the policies at issue here are excess/umbrella policies rather than comprehensive general liabilities policies, that difference is not material to the issue presented here. Therefore, unlike the plurality, I would not limit the word “damages” in the indemnity provisions of these policies to money ordered by a court. Instead, I would hold that it includes expenses that the County of San Diego incurred to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s cleanup and abatement order.
*427 I agree with the plurality, however, that the insurer was not obligated to indemnify the county for its costs of settling the claims of adjoining property owners, in the absence of the insurer’s consent to the settlements, at least to the extent those costs were not mandated by any administrative order.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied October 26, 2005. Kennard, 1, and Werdegar, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9788515. Public record. Not legal advice.