California
Timmiss v. Kaiser
Year: 2004
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: Appellate Court No. ID Civil No. A102962
Issue:
  • Health Plans
State:
  • California

Letter Brief supporting petition to review. Health plans function as health insurers. If the evidence shows that insurers are requiring Policyholders to alter medications in order to take the proper dosage.Insurers are engaging in unfair business practices and are defeating the reasonable expectations of their…
TIG Insurance Company vs. Gary Smolker
Year: 1997
Court: California Superior Court, Los Angeles County
Case Number: BC 173952
Issue:
  • Good Faith and Fair Dealing
  • Markham quotes
State:
  • California
Superior Dispatch vs. Insurance Corporation of New York
Year: 2008
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3
Case Number: B204878
Issue:
  • Notice of time to file claim
  • Statute of Limitations
State:
  • California

The insurer’s position in this appeal is that, despite its violation of Sections 2695.4 and 2695.7 of the Cal. Code of Regulations, it should not be estopped to assert the contractual limitations period. The plain meaning of the regulations commands an insurer to give the…
State of California vs. Superior Court
Year: 2005
Court: Fourth Appellate District, California
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • California

Application of the “pollution Exclusion” in liability insurance policies, regarding allocation of burden of proof as between covered and non-covered issues; regulatory estoppel; (regulatory admissions)
State of California ex rel. Nee, Linda and Metz, John vs. Unum Provident Corporation, et al.
Year: 2005
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 5
Case Number: B183487
Issue:
  • Qui Tam
State:
  • California

Amicus brief filed jointly in this case by UP and the Consumer Attorneys of California. Supports the right of private citizens to bring qui tam actions seeking redress for unfair claim practices against insurance companies.
West American Insurance Company vs. Freeman, Mark R.
Year: 1995
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S049306
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

Insurance Company’s duty of good faith and fair dealing with its policyholder should continue into litigation and should not be limited to the circumstances surrounding the insurance coverage litigation.
Watts Industries, Inc. vs. Zurich American Insurance Company
Year: 2003
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 4
Case Number: B162067 (LASC Case No. 245144 consolidated with Case No. BC 251718)
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Insurer must offer a defense if there is a potential for coverage of any part of underlying claim.
Waters vs. United States Automobile Association
Year: 1995
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: BC 68468
Issue:
  • Emotional Distress
State:
  • California

Insurers duties re: property damage claims and insureds’ right to recover for emotional distress caused by bad faith conduct.
Watanabe vs. Blue Shield of California
Year: 2007
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 8
Case Number: 2nd Civ. No.B 195725 (BC 324008)
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

Blue Shield of California tried to shield itself from bad faith liability by claiming that Maria Watanabe’s benefits were denied by a medical group which had a contract with Blue Shield. But California law is clear: an insurer cannot delegate its implied covenant duties. The…
Vu vs. Prudential Prop. & Casualty Insurance Company
Year: 2000
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S078271
Issue:
  • Statute of Limitations
State:
  • California
Village Northridge Homeowners Association vs. State Farm Fire & Casualty, et al
Year: 2007
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S161008, Appellate District, Civil No. B188718
Issue:
  • Fraud in inducement to settle
State:
  • California

The question presented by the case is the following: After settling a first party claim by accepting money from and executing a release of the insurer, may an insured sue the insurer for fraud in inducing the settlement and seek to avoid the release without…
Vandenberg, John B. vs. Superior Court of the State of California
Year: 1998
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S067115
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • California

A coverage determination for property damage losses depends on the property itself and the nature of the risk causing the injury. Decision pertains to Commercial General Liability Policies
Unigard Insurance Co. vs. The City of Lodi, California, et al
Year: 1998
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 99-15802
Issue:
  • Insurance Companies are fiduciaries
State:
  • California
Uhrich vs. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
Year: 2002
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S117639
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • California

Letter Brief. A personal liability insurer cannot promise to defend and pay claims for enumerated intentional torts such as false arrest, false imprisonment, defamation, or invasion of privacy and then deny coverage because the inherently intentional quality of the insured’s act violates the policy requirement…
Truck Insurance Exchange vs. Superior Court of California
Year: 1997
Court: California Court of Appeal
Case Number: Civ. No. B117294, Court of Appeals, California, No. BC090825, c/w BC135685
Issue:
  • Plain Meaning
State:
  • California

Tutorial: contract v. tort; plain meaning as ordinary and popular meaning; legally obligate
State of California v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, Allstate
Year: 2006
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: Supreme Court Case No. S149988, CA Court of Appeal case no. E037627
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • California
State of California v. Continental Insurance Company
Year: 2008
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 2
Case Number: E041425
Issue:
  • Environmental Liabilities
State:
  • California
Cussler v. Crusader Entertainment, LLC
Year: 2009
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S181428
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

UP argued that the Court of Appeal’s reversal of a jury verdict threatens the most basic expectation of a contracting party—that the other party will not act in bad faith to deprive it of the benefit of its bargain. This issue is of particular importance…