California
Hotchalk Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
Year: 2017
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 16-17287
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

In California, coverage wording in insurance policies are interpreted broadly so as to afford the greatest possible protection to the insured, while exclusions are construed narrowly and against the insurer. Exclusions must be conspicuous, plain and clear. If provisions in an insurance policy are ambiguous,…
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Tempur-Sealy Int’l Ins. Co.
Year: 2017
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 16-16056
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

The most fundamental obligation of a liability insurer is to defend it’s insured against suits alleging bodily injury or property damage. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. This duty is triggered when any of the allegations of the complaint potentially…
Stein v. AXIS Insurance Company
Year: 2017
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One
Case Number: B265069
Issue:
  • D & O
  • Directors & Officers
  • Final Adjudication
  • Fraudulent or Criminal Acts
  • Scope of an Exclusion
State:
  • California

In this letter requesting publication, UP urged publication because the decision addresses an issue of great importance to the insurance community, on which there is no published appellate decision, and no citable California decision: for purposes of standard form exclusions in director and officer (“D&O”)…
Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. San Francisco Superior Court
Year: 2018
Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two
Case Number: A153198
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • California

UP wrote in opposition to a writ sought by the insurance company that would overturn a trial court ruling that held that an insurance company may not rescind a long term care insurance policy after the contestability period based on impermissible application questions. The trial…
Office Depot, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co.
Year: 2017
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 17-55125
Issue:
  • Negligent or Reckless Speech
State:
  • California

Insurance policies rarely, if ever, exclude coverage for negligent or reckless conduct. In fact, individual consumers and businesses purchase liability insurance for liabilities arising precisely from such conduct. In contrast, intentional acts undertaken with the intent to injure, are rarely insured. California courts look at…
Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (Montrose IX)
Year: 2017
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: B272387/S244737
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Excess Insurance
State:
  • California

UP submitted letters requesting depublication of the appellate decision and supporting review by the California Supreme Court. In it’s letters UP argued that the Montrose IX Court created new and bad law by (a) adopting a coverage-minimizing reading of the term “underlying insurance,” in contravention…
The Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co.
Year: 2017
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 15-55777
Issue:
  • Reasonable Expectations of Coverage
State:
  • California

Fundamental principles of California insurance law ensure that coverage exclusions are construed narrowly to avoid defeating the mutual intentions of the parties and, particularly, the reasonable expectations of the insured. California law does not consider words of an insurance policy (or any contract) in isolation.…
Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.
Year: 2017
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S239510
Issue:
  • Notice-prejudice
State:
  • California

The notice prejudice rule protects policyholders from undue forfeiture of benefits when they fail to report a claim within the applicable insurance policy’s deadline. California’s notice-prejudice rule allows a policyholder to file a claim after the reporting deadline if it can show that the late…
Comments to California Judicial Council on CACI No. 2334
Year: 2017
Court:
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

UP submitted comments to the California Judicial Council in response to proposed changes to California Civil Jury Instruction 2234 – Bad Faith (Third Party)—Refusal to Accept Reasonable Settlement Within Liability Policy Limits—Essential Factual Elements. UP pointed out four areas where the instruction needs revision: (1)…
Villanueva v. Fidelity National Title Co.
Year: 2018
Court: Supreme Court of California
Case Number: S252035
Issue:
  • Title Insurance
State:
  • California

UP’s Amicus Curiae Letter in Support of Petition for Review, or in the alternative Request for Depublication of Villanueva v. Fidelity National Title Co., S252035; published at (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1092 . Villanueva for the first time, strips California consumers of all rights to monetary…
ADIR International, LLC v. STARR Indemnity and Liability Co.
Year: 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 19-56320
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

People and companies that buy insurance to protect themselves from the cost of being sued by others, including by governments (as is the case here), depend on that insurance to pay for their legal representation. Without that vital coverage, many insureds will have no meaningful…
Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Co.
Year: 2020
Court: First District Court of Appeal, Division 2
Case Number: A155691
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

One of UP’s Platinum sponsors, Kerley Shaffer, LLP, obtained a reversal of summary judgment in favor of an insurance company in a bad faith claim. Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Co involved the application of the “genuine dispute” rule – a rule that allows…
Villanueva et. al. v. Fidelity National Title Company
Year: 2019
Court: Supreme Court of California
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Title Insurance
State:
  • California

In its brief, UP argues that the Court of Appeal incorrectly decided a case involving unfiled title insurance rates, and that if upheld, could negatively impact consumers across multiple lines of insurance. First, UP argues that the insurance code section in question does not provide…
CSAA Insurance Exchange, etc. et al. v. Oscar Herrera
Year: 2019
Court: Supreme Court of California
Case Number: S256799
Issue:
  • Course of Events Clause
State:
  • California

In its letter, UP argues that review is warranted in the above-named case. UP argues that future consideration and reliance on the CSAA opinion, particularly the “course of events” analysis, could deprive California policyholders of liability coverage for unintentional and accidental acts and conduct. The…