California
2130 Leavenworth Homeowners Association vs. State Farm Insurance Company
Year: 2005
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: A109367
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Request for Rehearing–UP argued that the Court of Appeal improperly ignored the State Farm policy language obligating the insurer to defend both claims and suits. By ignoring this language the First District violated the rule in California that “insurance contracts are construed to avoid rendering…
Baugh Construction Company vs. Granite State Insurance Company
Year: 1996
Court: California Court of Appeal, 3rd District
Case Number: C023071
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

Under New Jersey law, the obligation of good faith and fair dealing extends to the assertion, settlement and litigation of contract claims
Basich vs. Allstate Insurance Company, et al.
Year: 2000
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3
Case Number: B132634, LASC Case No. BC 167194
Issue:
  • Statute of Limitations
State:
  • California

Statute of Limitations-equitable estoppel
Anderson, Thomas vs. Allstate Insurance Company
Year: 2000
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 01-15145, 01-15246, 01-15307 & 01-15330
Issue:
  • Mold
State:
  • California

Insurer cannot use toxic mold protection act to shield itself from bad faith liability in a claim regarding remediation of mold. /thorough investigation/legal treatises.
American Insurance Association vs. Garamendi
Year: 2003
Court: California Court of Appeal, 3rd District
Case Number: 45000
Issue:
  • "Use it and Lose it"
  • Claims and Cancellation
State:
  • California

Attempt to stop insurer’s from engaging in the practice know as “Use it and lose it.”
AICCO, Inc. vs. INA Financial Corporation
Year: 2000
Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 5
Case Number: A092096
Issue:
  • Corporate Restructuring - Assignment of Liabilities
State:
  • California

An insurance company cannot avoid coverage in a class policies simply restructuring itself and assigning its liabilities to another company without first obtaining the consent of its policyholders.
Aerojet-General Corporation vs. Transport Indemnity Insurance Company
Year: 1996
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S054501
Issue:
  • Allocation
State:
  • California

Insurance companies should not be allowed to profit from inconsistent coverage positions. / Allocation
Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Association v. Associated International Insurance Co.
Year: 2000
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3
Case Number: B137320
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

Insurance companies should not be allowed to escape liability simply by hiring an expert. As a matter of law, the insurance company must conduct a fair and thorough investigation or whether or not it has acted in bad faith is a question of fact, and…
Cassim, Fareed vs. Allstate Insurance Company
Year: 2003
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S109711
Issue:
  • Attorney's Fees
State:
  • California

Insureds should have the right to recover attorney’s fees incurred to recover unpaid benefits.
Carrington, Harold J. vs. Superior Court of CA
Year: 2002
Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 4
Case Number: 104694
Issue:
  • Long-term care
State:
  • California

Insurer should not be able to deny long term care policy years later on basis of alleged misrepresentation on application where insured now has Alzheimer’s. (Post claims underwriting)
California Medical Association vs. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California
Year: 2001
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S103631
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

Health Plans play the same function as health insurers and should be held to the same standards. Policyholders reasonably expect adequate payment by health plans for their healthcare. Because inadequate payment to physicians could compromise the quality of healthcare, underfunding intermediaries and not paying physicians…
California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. vs. California Department of Managed Care et al.
Year: 2001
Court: California Court of Appeal, 3rd District
Case Number: C041091
Issue:
  • Private right of enforcement
State:
  • California

Writ of Mandate requiring California Dept. of Managed Health Care to obey and enforce Health & Safety Code section 137.30(h) (Knox-Keene Act). Policyholders should be able to obtain documents from the CDMHC in connection with their appeal of an HMO denial to ensure that policyholder’s…
California Auto Insurance Company v. Hogan
Year: 2003
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S120950
Issue:
  • Auto insurance
State:
  • California

California motor vehicle insurance provides coverage for injuries bearing almost any causal relationship to the vehicle.
Buss, Jerry H. and California Sports, Inc. vs. Superior Court State of California
Year: 1996
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S052844
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Under California law an insurer has a duty to defend the entire case as long as there is a potential for coverage of even one claim. Insurer can request an allocation of costs after defense is complete. Allocation—covered vs. uncovered.
Blue Ridge v. Jacobsen
Year: 2000
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: 98-55052
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Letter brief requesting rehearing–scope of duty to defend
Delgado vs. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California
Year: 2007
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S155129
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

This case concerns the proper scope of an insurer’s duty to defend its insured in circumstances indicating that the insured may have acted in self-defense. United Policyholders takes the position that whenever the lawsuit contains factual allegations or extrinsic evidence from which the insurer can…
DeBruyn vs. Superior Court (Farmers Group, Inc.)
Year: 2007
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S161000
Issue:
  • Insurance Code Section 530
  • Proximate Cause
State:
  • California

DeBruyn presents a critical issue regarding the rule of efficient proximate cause and Insurance code section 530 in the aftermath of this Court’s opinion in Julien v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company (2005) 35 Cal.4th 747. It is important for this Court to grant the petition…
Davis vs. Ford Motor Credit Company
Year: 2009
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S179049
Issue:
  • Standing
State:
  • California

Resolves the important question of what standard should apply when a consumer (as opposed to a business) brings a claim challenging an alleged “unfair” business practice in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (“UCL”) This brief was…