Insurance Law News
Coverage, Litigation, Solutions

Insurance Law News - May 2016

< Return to News page

Controlling Shareholder of Insured Corporation Does Not Have "Standing" to Seek Declaratory Relief Against Corporation's Insurers

The controlling shareholder of an insured corporation did not have sufficient legal "standing" to pursue a claim for declaratory relief against the corporation's liability insurers. (D. Cummins Corporation v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (2016) WL 1726079)


For many years, D. Cummins Corporation (Cummins Corp.) installed asbestos containing products in California. Later, hundreds of persons filed lawsuits against Cummins Corp. alleging bodily injury based on exposure to asbestos containing products.

Cummins Corp. was the named insured on primary and excess insurance policies issued by United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF&G) for the period of July 1969 through January 1987 and United States Fire Insurance Company (US Fire) for the period of February 1988 through January 1992. Cummins Corp. thus tendered the defense of the asbestos lawsuits to USF&G and US Fire. Later, various disputes arose between Cummins Corp., on the one hand, and USF&G and US Fire, on the other hand, regarding defense and indemnity for the asbestos lawsuits.

On January 17, 2014, D. Cummins Holding LLC (Cummins Holding) was formed and became the parent and controlling shareholder of Cummins Corp. Six days later, on January 23, 2014, Cummins Corp. and Cummins Holding jointly filed a declaratory relief action against USF&G and US Fire in order to obtain rulings regarding USF&G's and US Fire's obligations to defend and indemnify Cummins Corp. in the underlying asbestos lawsuits.

USF&G and US Fire demurred to Cummins Holding's cause of action for declaratory relief, asserting that Cummins Holding was not an "insured" under the policies and thus did not have "standing" to sue the insurers for declaratory relief. The trial court sustained the insurers' demurrers without leave to amend and dismissed Cummins Holding from the case. Cummins Holding appealed.


The California Court of Appeal affirmed. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 provides that "[a]ny person interested under a written instrument … or under a contract … may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action … for a declaration of his or her rights and duties …." A related statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 1061, provides that "[t]he court may refuse to exercise the power granted by this chapter in any case where its declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances." Italics added.

Here, Cummins Corp. as named insured was a "person interested" who had legal standing to sue the insurers for a declaration of rights under the insurance policies. By contrast, Cummins Holding as controlling shareholder of Cummins Corp. did not qualify as a "person interested" who had sufficient standing to sue for a declaration of rights under the policies. Even if Cummins Holding was the sole entity responsible for managing the affairs of Cummins Corp., that indirect interest did not translate into "a legally cognizable theory of declaratory relief." Cummins Corp. could pursue its own rights, and Cummins Holding as shareholder would profit indirectly. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Cummins Holding had failed to state a claim for declaratory relief against USF&G and US Fire.


Here, Cummins Holding was not an insured, did not have an assignment from an insured, and was not a judgment creditor of an insured. As such, Cummins Holding could not demonstrate the existence of any actual controversy between it and the insurers. The only party who had standing to pursue a declaratory relief action was the actual insured, Cummins Corp.

This case is consistent with prior California appellate cases holding that a corporation's shareholders generally do not have standing to sue the corporation's insurer. (See, e.g., Seretti v. Superior Nat. Ins. Co. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 920, 922-924; C & H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1068.)


Top of Page




Print Page    
Smith Smith & Feeley LLP
1401 Dove Street
Suite 610
Newport Beach, California 92660

Telephone: 949.263.5920
Facsimile: 949.263.5925


Sign-up for Newsletter

News Archives


Among the topics we have covered in recent seminars are the following:

  • The Foreclosure Process and Its Effect on Mortgagee/Loss Payee Claims
  • Contractual Limitation Periods in Property Insurance Policies
  • Intentional/Criminal Acts Coverage Issues
  • Condominium Coverage Issues
  • Responding to Policy Limit Demands
  • Conflicts of Interest Requiring Independent (Cumis) Counsel
  • Effective Use of Declaratory Relief Actions
  • Property and Liability Coverage for Mold Claims
  • Insurance Coverage for Loss of Computer Data
  • Advertising Injury/Personal Injury Coverage
  • Unfair Competition (Business & Professions Code Section 17200)
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution of Problem Claims
  • Genuine Issue Doctrine
  • Collapse Coverage Issues

Request Seminar information






Disclaimer, Privacy Statement, Terms of Use

Home | Practice Profile | Attorneys | News | Seminars | Careers | Contact

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your own situation.

Smith Smith & Feeley LLP
1401 Dove Street . Suite 610 . Newport Beach, California 92660
Telephone: 949.263.5920 | Facsimile: 949.263.5925

©2002-2017 Smith Smith & Feeley LLP All Rights Reserved

Lawyer Web Designers