Latest Publications

Share:

Employer’s False Statements Opposing Workers' Compensation Claim Not Privileged Against Liability Under the Insurance Frauds...

In People ex rel. etc. v. Hebb (No. E066471, filed 12/19/17), a California appeals court held that false or fraudulent statements given in opposition to a workers’ compensation claim are not privileged from liability under...more

Insurer Claiming Reimbursement for Cleanup Costs Entitled to Writ of Attachment Against Insured on Showing Probable Validity of...

In Santa Clara Waste Water Co. v. Allied World Nat'l. Assur. Co. (No. B279679, filed 12/20/17), a California appeals court affirmed the grant of a right to attach order and a writ of attachment against the policyholder for...more

Court Awards Summary Judgment on Prior Knowledge Limitation of Professional Liability Policy

In Admiral Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (No. D072267, filed 11/21/17, ord. pub. 12/12/17), a California appeals court held that an application question about prior knowledge of facts that could give rise to a “malpractice...more

Court Enforces Exclusion of Products Claims From Intercompany Arbitration Agreement

In State Farm General Insurance Co. v. Watts Regulator Co. (No. B271236, filed 11/30/17), a California appeals court held that a manufacturer could not compel intercompany arbitration of an insurer’s subrogation claim,...more

Insurer Reporting of Total Loss to DMV is Subject to Qualified Privilege and Court Explains Admissibility of Claim Documents

In Klem v. Access Insurance Co. (No. 17D070623, filed 11/20/17), a California appeals court analyzed the admissibility of claim file documents as evidence, and held that an insurer’s reporting of a vehicle total loss...more

Ownership is Not a Conclusive Factor for Ongoing Operations Additional Insured Coverage

In McMillin Management Services v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co. (No. D069814, filed 11/14/17), a California appeals court held that an insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor under an “ongoing operations” additional...more

Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site...

In State of California v. Continental Ins. Co. (No. E064518; filed 9/29/17), a California appeals court ruled that after Continental was ultimately held to pay its policy limits for remediation of the Stringfellow hazardous...more

Montrose III: Appeals Court Rejects “Elective Vertical Stacking,” but Declines to Find “Universal Horizontal Exhaustion” Absent...

In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (No. B272387; filed 8/31/17) (Montrose III), a California appeals court found that excess insurance is not triggered for continuous and progressive losses until there has been...more

Appeals Court Finds Manuscript Additional Insured Endorsements Ambiguous Regarding Completed Operations Coverage for Additional...

In Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (No. D070478; filed 8/30/17), a California appeals court found that manuscript additional insured endorsements on construction subcontractors’ policies were ambiguous...more

Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage Where Ordinary Negligence is Inseparably Intertwined With Professional Service

In Energy Ins. Mutual Ltd. v. Ace American Ins. Co. (No. A140656, filed 7/11/17, ord. Pub. 8/10/17), a California appeals court found that a professional services exclusion barred coverage for wrongful death and other claims...more

Court Declines to Order Arbitration of Bad Faith Case, Applying California Over Federal Law

In Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (No. B275597, filed 7/12/17), (“LA Unified”), a California appeals court held that a California state court has the discretion under state law to refuse...more

Court Finds That Split in Underground Storage Tank is Not a Covered Collapse

In Tustin Field Gas & Food v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. (No. B268850, filed 7/3/17), a California appeals court ruled that a split in an underground storage tank, caused by the tank sitting on a rock for years, was not a covered...more

Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim

In Duarte v. Pacific Specialty Ins. (No. A143828; filed 6/12/17, ord. pub. 6/29/17) a California appeals court held that an insurer was not entitled to summary judgment on its rescission claim because the disputed questions...more

Failure to Have Additional Treatment Records Reviewed by Expert Precludes Summary Judgment on Genuine Dispute Doctrine

In Zubillaga v. Allstate Indemnity Company (No. G052603, filed 6/19/17), a California appeals court ruled that triable issues about the insurer’s reliance on expert medical opinions precluded summary judgment on the genuine...more

Repair Cost Exceeding Actual Cash Value Does Not Establish “Total Loss” Under Fire Insurance Policy

In California FAIR Plan Assn. v. Garnes (No. A143190, filed 5/26/17), a California appeals court ruled that “total loss” under Insurance Code section 2051 refers to physical damage or loss, not the economic fact that the cost...more

Court Finds No Bar On Rescinding Workers’ Compensation Insurance, Even After Filing of Claim

In Southern Ins. Co. v. WCAB (No. B278412, filed 5/10/17), a California appeals court, reversing a workers’ compensation arbitrator’s decision, held that a workers’ compensation policy can be rescinded for material...more

Court Finds Customary Use of Work Van for Personal Purposes is Regular Use and Not Covered Under Employee’s Personal Auto Policy

In Medina v. GEICO Indemnity (No. F072548, filed 2/8/17), a California appeals court ruled that a work van admittedly furnished to an employee for both business and personal purposes, being used for personal purposes at the...more

California Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Regulate Replacement Cost Estimates

In Assn. of Cal. Insurance Companies v. Jones ( No. S226529, filed 1/23/17), the California Supreme Court reversed trial and appellate court decisions to hold that California’s Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones had the...more

Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards

In Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Const. (No.G050759, filed 12/27/16), a California appeals court held that the knowing installation of flooring over a vapor-emitting slab was not an accident or occurrence,...more

General Contractor’s Excess Insurer Denied Equitable Contribution From Subcontractor’s Excess Insurer

In Advent v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., etc. (No. H041934 filed 12/6/16), a California appeals court refused to order a subcontractor’s excess insurer to contribute to a general contractor’s excess insurer because the...more

Repeated Use of Defective Fireplace Triggers Duty to Defend Even if Active Fire Does Not Break Out Until After End of Policy...

In Tidwell Enterprises v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co. (No. C078665, filed 11/29/16), a California appeals court held that that even though a house fire occurred after the policy period, there was nonetheless a possibility of...more

Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure...

In Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (No. B234271A, filed 11/3/16), (“Nickerson II”) a California appeals court outlined the requirements for complying with the single-digit multiplier annunciated as a Constitutional...more

Court Upholds Cancellation for Failure to Exclude or Add Driver on Request as a “Substantial Increase in the Hazard Insured...

In Mills v. AAA Northern CA, NV and Utah Ins. Exch. (No. C072644, filed 9/20/16), a California appeals court held that an insurer’s cancellation of a personal auto policy was valid where based upon the insureds’ failure to...more

Insurer’s Optional Appeals Process Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations Following Unequivocal Written Denial

In Vishva Dev, M.D., Inc. v. Blue Shield of Cal. (No. B270094, filed 8/31/16), a California appeals court confirmed that the unequivocal denial of a claim, in whole or in part, commences the running of the statute of...more

Claimants’ Demand for Superfluous Wording In Release Does Not Excuse Insurer’s Failure to Accept Policy Limit Offer Within Time...

In Barickman v. Mercury Casualty Co. (No. B260833, filed 7/25/16, ord. pub. 8/15/16) a California appeals court affirmed a $3 million bad faith award against Mercury Casualty Co. based upon its failure to accept a policy...more

60 Results
/
View per page
Page: of 3

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.