SPRINKLES v. ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORPORATION
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>SPRINKLES v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >SPRINKLES v. ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY<br /> CORPORATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 9/1/10<br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SECOND<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> FIVE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>ROSE SPRINKLES et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiffs and Appellants,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY<br /> CORPORATION et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendants and Respondents.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> B218417<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Los Angeles<br /> County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct.<br /> No. BC410998)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEAL from<br /> an order of dismissal by the Superior Court of the County<br /> of Los<br /> Angeles, Ronald M. Sohigian, Judge. Affirmed.<br /> <br/> Grassini<br /> & Wrinkle, Roland Wrinkle for Plaintiffs and Appellants.<br /> <br/> Hager &<br /> Dowling, John V. Hager for Defendants and Respondents.<br /> <br clear=all<br /> ><br /> <br/><b >INTRODUCTION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Plaintiffs and appellants Rose,<br /> Austin, and Logan Sprinkles<sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup> are the heirs of a motorcyclist who died in an<br /> accident caused by an employee, Juan Bibinz (Bibinz), of Sinco Co., Inc.<br /> (Sinco). Sinco had an automobile<br /> liability policy issued by General Insurance Company of America (General), an<br /> excess and umbrella policy issued by Fireman's Fund Insurance Company<br /> (Fireman's Fund), and a commercial general liability (CGL) policy issued by<br /> Fireman's Fund.<sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup> Plaintiffs partially settled with Sinco and<br /> Bibinz for the full policy limits under the automobile policy and the excess<br /> and umbrella policy. Fireman's Fund<br /> denied coverage under the CGL policy and, under that policy, refused to defend<br /> an action by plaintiffs against Sinco. <br /> In the partial settlement, plaintiffs, Sinco, and Bibinz agreed to<br /> arbitrate plaintiffs' claims, and plaintiffs took an assignment of Sinco's<br /> claims under the CGL policy against Fireman's Fund. <br /> <br/>After the arbitrator's award to<br /> plaintiffs of more than $27 million, plaintiffs filed this bad faith action<b > </b>against Fireman's Fund.<b > </b>Before the trial court on a demurrer to<br /> the complaint, Fireman's Fund contended that Bibinz was an insured under the<br /> CGL policy, and therefore the exclusion in the policy for automobile accidents applied. The trial court sustained the demurrer<br /> without leave to amend, holding that the CGL policy provided no coverage for<br /> the automobile accident that caused plaintiffs' damages. <br /> <br/> Plaintiffs<br /> assert, inter alia, that the policy definition of â€