Southern California Edison is suing Starr over its alleged failure to defend the utility as an additional insured after a contractor's crane allegedly tipped over.
The lawsuit, Southern California Edison Company v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company, et al., No. 2:26-cv-02697 (C.D. Cal.), was filed on March 13, 2026, in the US District Court for the Central District of California. It names Starr Indemnity and Liability Company and Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company as defendants. At its core, the case raises a question familiar to claims professionals: what happens when an insurer allegedly defends its named insured but goes silent on the additional insured's claim under the same policies?
The dispute traces back to December 1, 2023, when Rokstad Power Inc., a contractor working for SCE under a Master Services Agreement, was performing power line maintenance near a home in Loma Linda, California. According to the filing, a crane operated by Rokstad allegedly tipped over onto the property, causing damage. The homeowners, Percy and Debra Harper, later filed a negligence lawsuit against SCE, Rokstad, and others in San Bernardino County Superior Court in September 2025.
Under the MSA, Rokstad was required to carry commercial general liability insurance with per-occurrence and aggregate limits of at least $2 million and to name SCE as an additional insured for any liability arising, in whole or in part, from Rokstad's work. The agreement also required that coverage apply as primary insurance, without any right of contribution from SCE's own policies.
The policies included an additional insured endorsement covering any person or organization Rokstad was "required to cover by written contract," and imposed on Starr "the right and duty to defend the insured against any 'suit' seeking damages because of property damage" potentially tied to Rokstad's acts or omissions.
SCE says it tendered its claim to Starr on November 12, 2025, providing the underlying lawsuit, certificates of insurance, and the MSA. Starr acknowledged receipt two days later and assigned Gallagher Bassett to manage the claim - but, according to the filing, never responded on the merits. Court records show SCE sent repeated follow-up demands through March 2026 and ultimately retained Frost Brown Todd LLP as independent counsel to handle the underlying case.
Here is where insurers may want to pay close attention. SCE alleges that Starr accepted Rokstad's own claim under the same policies and is actively defending Rokstad - while leaving SCE, an additional insured under those very policies, without so much as a response. SCE describes this as an inconsistent coverage position and indicative of bad faith.
SCE is seeking a declaratory judgment confirming Starr's obligation to defend, compensatory damages for breach of contract, and punitive damages for what it describes as a tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
No determination has been made on the merits. The case is in its earliest stages.
