Appellant lawyers sought review of a judgment rendered by the Superior Court of San Diego County.

Appellant lawyers sought review of a judgment rendered by the Superior Court of San Diego County (California) that granted summary judgment to appellee insurer and state compensation insurance fund in appellants' action for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and other claims. Plaintiff in an underlying action sued appellant lawyers for wrongful termination and defamation. Appellants requested that appellee insurer and state insurance fund defend them in the action. Appellees refused to defend. Appellants filed a complaint against appellees for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Appellees filed motions for summary judgment. Appellee insurer contended it had no duty to defend because its policy excluded coverage for personal injuries due to termination of employment or employment-related practices. Appellee state insurance fund contended its policy excluded coverage for the intentional conduct involved. The court found there were no triable issues of material fact and, based on the policies and applicable law, appellees had no duty to defend appellants in plaintiff's action. The court granted summary judgment to appellees. class action lawsuit lawyers californiaThe reviewing court affirmed. Under language of appellee insurer's policy, appellee insurer had no duty to defend. Appellants failed to show that appellee state insurance fund had any potential for coverage under its policy giving rise to a duty to defend. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to appellee insurer in a breach of contract action because the language in appellee insurer's policy excluded claims brought by plaintiff in the underlying action against appellants. The court affirmed summary judgment as to appellee state insurance fund because appellants failed to show that there was any potential for coverage under the policy. Petitioner, state's Industrial Welfare Commission, filed suit against respondent employers, claiming that it had authority under Cal. Const. art. XIV, § 1to issue regulations concerning wage orders, employees' minimum wages, maximum hours, and standard conditions of employment for the employees of the state. Petitioner state's Industrial Welfare Commission enacted a series of industry-wide wage orders, prescribing the minimum wages, maximum hours, and standard conditions of employment for employees in the state. Respondent employers challenged the regulations, arguing that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the case, petitioner was without authority to enact the regulations, and that the regulations violated due process. The court held that due to the tortuous litigation history, which prevented petitioner's prior regulations from taking effect, it was appropriate for the court to exercise its original jurisdiction. The court also determined that under Cal. Const. art. XIV, § 1, petitioner was given broad leeway to enact regulations for the general welfare and protection of employees within the state, which a liberal construction with an eye to promoting such protection. The court stated that the regulations were properly enacted under petitioner's authority, and in full compliance with state law. The court also concluded that the regulations did not violate due process, and even though the regulations were overlapping with other statutory enactments, it was permissible. The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, and held that petitioner state's Industrial Welfare Commission had authority to enact regulations prescribing the minimum wages, maximum hours, and standard conditions of employment for employees in the state; and that the regulations did not violate due process.