“Per insureds’ account, Continental’s lone explanation for its refusal to indemnify was flatly inconsistent with evidence timely supplied to it by the insureds,” Judge Sykes wrote. She further emphasized that Continental’s vague “disputes (as to) the veracity and completeness” of facts presented in the insureds’ amended complaint were not appropriate considerations at this stage of the litigation.
A Setback for Punitive Damages Claim
However, while the companies secured a victory in their pursuit of a bad faith claim, Judge Sykes opted to dismiss a claim for punitive damages. The reasoning behind this decision was that Sempra and SoCalGas had failed to demonstrate that Continental had malicious intentions or had acted without due care regarding the potential hardships they could inflict.
“None of the conduct described in the complaint appears outrageous enough to meet these statutory requirements, nor do insureds suggest that Continental or its agents acted with the requisite intent to inflict harm,” Judge Sykes explained.
Sempra Gas Leak Coverage Suit : The Catastrophic Gas Leak Saga
The Sempra and SoCalGas saga dates back to 2015 when they discovered a significant gas leak near a natural gas storage well at Aliso Canyon. This discovery unleashed a wave of personal injury lawsuits stemming from the effects of the gas leak. This Aliso Canyon blowout would go on to become the largest natural gas leak in U.S. history, spewing nearly 100,000 tons of methane over a period exceeding 100 days.
