California
Sigelman et al. vs. Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 2007
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1
Case Number: D050783
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • California

Letter Brief supporting petition for review. Malpractice insurer rescinded policy for alleged misrepresentation in the application. The policy had been in force for seventeen years. Trial court entered judgment in favor of the policyholder. The Appellate Court reversed.
Scottsdale Insurance Company vs. Essex Insurance Company
Year: 2001
Court: California Superior Court, Orange County
Case Number: 804650
Issue:
  • Condition Precedent
  • Construction Defect
State:
  • California

Request for depublication. In construction defect litigation, the Court should not blindly enforce the condition-precedent language of the special subcontractor’s endorsement. If it does, extra-contractual considerations that are cited for enforcement of the endorsement will be ignored.
St. Joe Minerals Corporation vs. Zurich Insurance
Year: 1998
Court: Fourth Appellate District, California
Case Number: 697526
Issue:
  • Clean up costs as damages
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California
Safeco Insurance Company vs. Parks
Year: 2007
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District
Case Number: B199364 (consolidated with B200267)
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Disclosure Requirement—Under 10 Cal. Code Regs. Section 2695.4(a) mandates that when a claim is made to the insurer, the insurer must “disclose . . . all benefits, coverage, time limits or other provisions of any insurance policy issued by that insurer that may apply to…
Rosen, George vs. State Farm General Insurance Company
Year: 2002
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S108308
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • California

Imminent collapse must be covered under the collapse coverage section otherwise the result is unconscionable.
TRB Investments vs. Fireman’s Fund
Year: 2005
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: F045816
Issue:
  • Interpretation of "under construction" exclusion
State:
  • California

The Court’s interpretation of the “under construction” exception to the exclusion to apply only to the new construction of a building and not to the renovation of an existing building violates California law in numerous ways.
Tran, Ngoc M., dba Shing Fat Supermarket vs. Farmers Group, Truck Insurance Exchange
Year: 2002
Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 3
Case Number: A093437
Issue:
  • Farmers should not be able to avoid liability by claiming that it only serves as “attorney in fact.”
State:
  • 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…