Top Appellate Reversals: Fluor Corp. V. Superior Court

Supplement to the Los Angeles and San Francisco

FEBRUARY 17, 2016 TTopop VVerdicerdicttss ofof 20152015 The largest and most significant verdicts and appellate reversals handed down in California in 2015 TOP APPELLATE REVERSALS Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court

G. ANDREW LUNDBERG JOHN M. WILSON BROOK B. ROBERTS case a long-running insurance coverage dispute with Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye wrote Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. the August opinion for her colleagues. INFO The question — worth billions of dollars to “I don’t know how everybody missed it Insurance coverage California insurers and their customers — was [Section 520] the first time around,” Roberts California Supreme Court whether an underwriter can enforce policy said, noting that Latham was not involved in provisions that prohibit reassignment of policies Henkel. “We would have found it.” to a third party without the insurer’s consent. “One challenge was to get the court not Plaintiffs’ lawyers: Latham & The problem for Fluor and its lawyers was to be defensive about their prior ruling and Watkins, G. Andrew Lundberg, Brook that the state high court had come up with an to persuade them that the statute compels a B. Roberts, John M. Wilson answer adverse to Fluor’s position in a major contrary result,” he added. “I was extremely precedential ruling in a case called Henkel more proud that the justices appeared more than Defense lawyers: Horvitz & Levy than a decade earlier. Fluor Corp v. Superior willing to hear our arguments and come to the LLP, Jason R. Litt, John A. Taylor Jr.; Court, 61 Cal.4th 1175. right conclusion.” How to overcome Henkel? One of Latham’s Latham added in a statement that the fresh Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein LLP, Alan lead counsel, Brook B. Roberts, said a colleague outcome will have significant implications for Jay Weil, Jeffrey B. Ellis; Shipman & alerted him to an obscure provision of the long-tail asbestos, environmental and product Goodwin LLP, James P. Ruggeri, Joshua Insurance Code dating from the 19th century, liability claims by policyholders. D. Weinberg Section 520, which the Supreme Court had not “The policyholder bar had attempted for considered when it issued its Henkel opinion. years to overcome Henkel, which represented etitioning the state Supreme Court to Latham successfully persuaded a unanimous an outlier position among the courts to have reverse itself is always a big ask. But bench that Section 520 controlled the outcome, considered when anti-assignment clauses are Pthat’s the job Latham & Watkins LLP’s required Henkel’s reversal and allowed enforceable,” the firm added in a statement. litigation team took on in representing global policyholders to freely assign their coverage engineering construction giant Fluor Corp. in rights following a loss. — John Roemer