Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Pederson

Opinion

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF Case No. 1:24-cv-01299 JLT CDB AMERICA, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, AND ENTERING JAMES PEDERSON, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR Defendant.

(Doc. 42) Safeco Insurance Company of America initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on October 24, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On March 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking relief in the form of a declaration that it owes no duties to defend or indemnify Defendant James Pederson in the underlying lawsuit, Doe v. Flyers Energy, LLC, et. al., Case No. BCV-24-101783, in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern. (Doc. 35.) Defendant did not file an opposition. On July 3, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations to grant Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 42.) The magistrate judge found that the events at issue in the underlying lawsuit1 did not constitute an “occurrence” as defined in the

1 In the underlying lawsuit, Jane Doe, who along with Defendant was employed by Flyers Energy LLC during the relevant period, alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Defendant after a workplace event. (See generally Doc. 1- 2.) She advances the following claims: (1) hostile work environment sexual harassment against Defendant and Flyers Energy; (2) failure to remedy and prevent harassment in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act operative insurance policy under both California and Washington law and, thus, Plaintiff does not have a duty to defend or indemnify Defendant in connection with the underlying lawsuit. Id. at 12-15. Defendant filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations on July 17, 2025, (Doc. 44), which the Court has reviewed and considered. Defendant argues the magistrate judge “improperly concluded that the negligence claims are derivative of intentional acts and therefore excluded from coverage,” citing to Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Constr. Co., 5 Cal. 5th 216, 222 (2018), as modified (July 25, 2018). Defendant cites Liberty Surplus for the proposition that “negligent hiring and supervision can constitute an ‘occurrence’ under a liability policy, even if the underlying harm was intentional.” (Doc. 44 at 2.) However, Liberty Surplus concerned a coverage dispute between the employer of an individual alleged to have committed sexual assault and that employer’s insurer. See 5 Cal. 5th at 222. Here, Defendant, not Flyers Energy, is the insured party, and the underlying negligence claims are brought against Flyers Energy, not Defendant. See id. (“It is important to keep in mind that a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision seeks to impose liability on the employer, not the employee … It is undisputed that [the employee’s] sexual misconduct was a ‘wilful act’ beyond the scope of insurance coverage … However, [the employee’s] intentional conduct does not preclude potential coverage for [the employer].”). Liberty Surplus is inapposite. Defendant further objects that the magistrate judge failed to apply “settled law that an insurer must defend if there is any potential for coverage” and that “[a]llegations of negligence alone may trigger a duty to defend.” (Doc. 44 at 2.) In support, Defendant cites to cases that stand for the general principle that an insurer has a duty to provide a complete defense even in mixed actions involving covered and uncovered claims. (Id.); see also Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. J.R. Mktg., L.L.C., 61 Cal. 4th 988 (2015) (“This court has long maintained that if any claims in a third party complaint against a person or entity protected by a commercial general liability [ ]insurance policy are even potentially covered by the policy, the insurer must provide its insured with a defense to all the claims.”). But, again, Defendant does not point to any claim that should be covered by his policy, so this is not a “mixed” action as to claims against him. Finally, Defendant states that the Findings and Recommendations “improperly resolve[] disputed facts about the Defendant’s conduct ... Discovery is essential to fully understand whether the negligence claims are independent and covered by the policy.” (Doc. 44 at 2.) Because Defendant is not named in the negligence claim in the underlying action, the relationship between that claim and any other has no bearing on his insurer’s duty to defend. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Defendant’s objections, the Court concludes the Findings and are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 3, 2025 (Doc. 42), are 2. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 35) is GRANTED. 3. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant as follows: a. The Court DECLARES that Safeco has no duties, and never had duties, to defend nor to indemnify Pederson against the claims at issue in the underlying lawsuit (Doe v. Flyers Energy, LLC, et al., Case No. BCV-24- 101783, in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern). 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

o> | Dated: _ August 1, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE