MONTROSE CHEMICAL CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA v. S.C. (Canadian Universal Insurance Company) (2025)

The petition for review is granted.

The issues to be briefed and argued are limited to the following: (1) May a court conclude that contract language is not reasonably susceptible of a construction advanced by a party without first giving preliminary consideration to the extrinsic evidence proffered by the party? (2) Under what circumstances, if any, does prior judicial construction of contract language render that language not reasonably susceptible to a construction advanced by a party and preclude preliminary consideration of extrinsic evidence proffered by that party to support that construction?

Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 114 Cal.App.5th 889, 337 Cal.Rptr.3d 222, may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937, to choose between sides of any such conflict. (See Standing Order Exercising Authority Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(3), Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.)

Guerrero, C. J., and Corrigan, J., were recused and did not participate. Votes: Evans, A. C. J., Liu, Kruger, and Groban, JJ.