United States: Fluor Corp.v. Superior Court

(Insurer’s Right to Invoke Consent to Assignment Provision Limited by Insurance Code Section 520)

In Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, 61 Cal. 4th 1175 (August 20, 2015) the California Supreme Court considered the effect of Insurance Code section 520 on its prior decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 29 Cal. 4th 934 (2003) regarding consent to assignment provisions (“non-assignment”). The Court summarized its decision in Henkel as:

[W]hen a liability insurance policy contains a consent-to-assignment clause an insured may not assign its right to invoke coverage under the policy without the insurer’s consent until there exists a “chose in action” against the insured, which we found in Henkel occurs only when the claims against the insured have “been reduced to a sum of money due or to become due under the policy.”

The Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision, finding that Section 520 does operate to limit an insurer’s ability to enforce consent to assignment clause “after a loss has happened,” disapproving of Henkel to the extent it is inconsistent.

The “original” Fluor Corporation “performed engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) operations through various corporate entities and subsidiaries.” Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company (“Hartford”) issued 11 commercial general liability policies to Fluor, for the period from approximately 1971 to 1986. Beginning in the mid-1980s, various Fluor entities were named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits, alleging exposure to asbestos. Fluor tendered these suits to Hartford and its other insurers, who accepted the defense.

During the 1980s, Fluor acquired A.T. Massey Coal Company, a mining business. In 2000, Fluor decided to restructure in a “reverse spinoff”: Fluor incorporated a newly formed subsidiary (“Fluor-2”), which retained the name “Fluor Corporation” and received from Fluor all EPC-related assets and liabilities, while the original Fluor changed its name to Massey Energy Company, which retained A.T. Massey’s coal mining and related business. Of note, the Distribution Agreement governing this restructuring provided:

[T]he original Fluor “shall transfer, assign and convey any and all rights and/or obligations it may have to [Fluor-2] with respect to . . . all Parent Assets and Parent Liabilities except” for certain listed assets—various specified investments, accounts, and intellectual property rights. (Italics added.) The agreement did not except any insurance rights from this otherwise broadly phrased transfer of “any and all” assets.

Fluor-2 essentially operated as the original Fluor:

After the reverse spinoff, Fluor-2 operated as the continuation of the original Fluor Corporation’s EPC business, openly claiming that it was vested with all the assets—including the insurance policies, under which it regularly sought and was afforded defense and indemnification coverage—and obligations (including liability relating to the asbestos suits) arising from the EPC business. Fluor-2 asserts that in conducting the same EPC business under the Fluor Corporation name, it was treated as the accounting successor to the original (pre-spinoff) Fluor for financial reporting purposes. Fluor-2 also used the same stock symbol (FLR), was owned by the same shareholders, was managed by the same executive team, was headquartered in the same location, and retained all of the books, licenses, permits, contracts and agreements associated with the original Fluor Corporation’s EPC business.

Approximately six months after the spinoff, in May 2001, Fluor-2 sent Hartford a letter summarizing the reverse spinoff. For the following seven years, Hartford continued to provide defense and indemnity coverage to Fluor-2 for the asbestos litigation. During that time, “Hartford raised no objection based on the reverse spinoff to coverage for third party liability claims presented by Fluor-2 [and] continued to collect from Fluor-2, as the claimant, nearly $5 million in ‘retrospective premiums.’”

In response to “various ancillary questions” about the coverage owed by Hartford, Fluor-2 initiated a declaratory relief action on behalf of itself and its subsidies. In mid-2009, Hartford filed a second amended cross-complaint asserting, for the first time, that the transfer of coverage to Fluor-2 violated the non-assignment provisions of the policies and seeking reimbursement of its prior defense and indemnity payments to Fluor-2.

Fluor-2 moved for summary adjudication of this issue, arguing that Section 520 “by its terms bars enforcement of the policies’ consent-to-assignment clauses ‘after a loss has happened.’” Hartford opposed this motion, citing to the Court’s precedent in Henkel. The trial court agreed with Hartford and found Henkel to be controlling.

In Henkel, the Court found (1) such a transfer was not as a matter of law, but effectuated by contract, (2) the transfer occurred before the claim was reduced to a sum of money due or to become due, and (3) therefore, any assignment was invalid for lack of the insurer’s consent. Notably, Henkel did not consider application of Section 520.

The Court of Appeal concluded Section 520 applied only to first party claims, and did not apply to third party liability claims, basing this decision on its determination that third party liability was not conceived of in 1872 when Section 520 was initially enacted.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal, finding Section 520 does apply to third party liability insurance. The California code commission and the Legislature created the Insurance Code, including this provision, in 1935. Based on the modifications to the different provisions (including Sections 100 and 108), the Court determined the Legislature did intend Section 520 to apply to third party liability insurance. The Court also found further support for this decision in that fact that the Legislature amended Section 520 in 1947, to specifically exempt life and disability insurance from its coverage.

The Court then turned to the proper construction of Section 520:

Section 520 provides: “An agreement not to transfer the claim of the insured against the insurer after a loss has happened, is void if made before the loss except as otherwise provided in Article 2 of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 2 of this code.” As alluded to earlier, the exception referred to in the concluding clause of section 520 concerns life insurance and disability insurance, neither of which is involved in this case. Consequently, the relevant language of section 520 provides that an agreement not to transfer a claim of an insured against an insurer “after a loss has happened, is void if made before the loss.” The controversy at this stage of the analysis concerns the meaning of the phrase “after a loss has happened” as used in the statute.

The Court noted the ambiguity in the phrase “after a loss has happened” in the context of third party liability insurance: the loss could occur when, e.g., the third party is exposed to asbestos, or when there is an entry of judgment, or at some other point. The only published decision applying Section 520 related to its application to first party insurance. To ascertain the proper interpretation, the Court turned to various New York decisions (concerning the predecessor to Section 520) and California decisions regarding first party insurance: Goit v. National Protection Ins. Co., 25 Barb. 189 (N.Y. Gen. Term 1855) (enforcing non-assignment clause while the risk is continuing, noting that this logic does not apply to an assignment after a loss when the insurer and insurer essentially become debtor and creditor); Courtney v. New York City Ins. Co.; 28 Barb. 116 (N.Y. Gen. Term 1858) (allowing assignment of “liability to pay damages which have accrued”); Dey v. Poughkeepsie Mutual Ins. Co., 23 Barb. 623 (N.Y. Gen. Term 1857) (minority holding enforcing non-assignment); Bergson v. Builders’ Ins. Co., 38 Cal. 541 (1869) (noting the reasons for enforcing non-assignment clauses do not apply when the difference is only to whom the money is paid). The Court determined that, in the context of first party insurance, the “loss has happened” immediately after the injury or damage. The Court then discussed case law in analyzing when the “loss has happened” for a third party liability claim: American Casualty Ins. Company’s Case, 82 Md. 535 (1896) (insurer’s obligation to reimburse the insured arises from insured’s responsibility for the occurrence); Maryland Casualty Co. of Baltimore, Maryland v. Omaha Electric Light & Power Co., 157 F. 514 (8th Cir. 1907) (upholding post-loss, and post-judgment, assignment as the reasons for enforcing non-assignment no longer apply); Rodgers v. Pacific Coast Casualty Co., 33 Cal. App. 70 (1917) (following Maryland Casualty in enforcing assignment after entry of judgment); Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 100 F.2d 441 (8th Cir. 1939) (enforcing post-loss assignment where the liability had not yet been reduced to judgment at the time of assignment); Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 10 Cal. 4th 645 (1995) (determining insurer’s duty to defend arises when there is the “potential for coverage” for “long tail” insurance coverage); State of California v. Continental Ins. Co., 55 Cal.4th 186 (2012) (extending Montrose to duty to indemnify).

In its determination, the Court noted that, post-loss, an insurer no longer needs the protection of non-assignment provisions to ensure the insurer does not receive a risk or burden greater than that for which it contracted. The Court held:

In view of the history described above, and consistent with the California cases touching on the subject [citations] we conclude that the phrase “after a loss has happened” in section 520 should be interpreted as referring to a loss sustained by a third party that is covered by the insured’s policy, and for which the insured may be liable. We conclude that the statutory phrase does not contemplate that there need have been a money judgment or approved settlement before such a claim concerning that loss may be assigned without the insurer’s consent.

The Court addressed challenges to its interpretation of Section 520. The Court rejected Hartford’s contention that “’loss’ must be interpreted as arising only after the underlying matter is first reduced to a judgment or approved settlement for a sum of money due,” finding that loss and liability can arise at the same time, and not just when a party “loses a lawsuit.” The Court also rejected Hartford’s argument that Henkel is controlling pursuant to Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), determining that, as the Court did not address Section 520 in the Henkel decision, “there is no basis on which to discount the primacy of the statute or to interpret it contrary to our present understanding of the common law.” Further, the Court rejected the argument that Section 520’s perceived obscurity should afford it less weight: “until the Henkel litigation, it appeared generally unnecessary for litigants or courts to cite or rely upon it.” Finally, the Court rejected Hartford’s suggestion that stare decisis urges against overruling Henkel. As the Henkel decision overlooked an existing statute, the Court found there was a basis for overruling Henkel.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions