Hollander v. XL Capital Ltd. CA2/1

Filed 11/16/15 Hollander v. XL Capital Ltd. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

GAIL HOLLANDER et al., B250649

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC365455) v.

XL CAPITAL LTD. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael L. Stern, Judge. Reversed. A. Tod Hindin, A. Tod Hindin and Karen L. Hindin for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Burris Schoenberg & Walden, Donald S. Burris, Richard E. Walden; Steptoe & Johnson and Stephen O’Donnell for Defendants and Respondents. ——————————

Gail and Stanley Hollander (Hollander) brought this suit alleging various contract and tort claims and named as defendants XL Specialty Insurance Company (XL Specialty) as well as a dozen other companies. The trial court ruled that nine of those other defendants are not vicariously liable for the actions of XL Specialty. Because the trial court erred in relying as law of the case on our prior decisions dismissing different defendants for lack of jurisdiction, we reverse and remand. BACKGROUND Hollander commenced this action against XL Specialty and over a dozen other related companies. A. XL Summary Judgment Defendants File Motion on Liability Eleven of those defendants (collectively, the XL Summary Judgment Defendants)—XL Capital Ltd. (ultimate parent of XL Specialty), XL Reinsurance America Inc. (direct parent of XL Specialty), X.L. America Inc. (indirect parent of XL Specialty), NAC Re Corp. (indirect parent of XL Specialty), XL Insurance America Inc., XL Insurance Company of New York Inc., XL Select Insurance Company, Indian Harbor Insurance Company, Greenwich Insurance Company, XL Re Ltd., and XL America Group—filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that they are not directly or vicariously liable for actions of XL Specialty. The trial court denied the motion because there were triable issues of fact. B. XL London Defendants File Motion on Jurisdiction XL London Market Ltd., XL London Market Services Ltd., and XL Services UK Ltd. (collectively, XL London Defendants)—no overlap with any of the XL Summary Judgment Defendants—filed a motion to quash service on the summons and complaint for lack of jurisdiction in California. The trial court granted the motion. This court affirmed in Hollander v. XL London Market Ltd. (Apr. 16, 2010, B213864) [nonpub. opn.] (XL London Defendants). As part of the holistic inquiry into jurisdiction, which considers whether the moving defendants could be vicariously liable for the actions of the nonmoving defendants, we held that Hollander had not established that the XL London