California
Federal Insurance Co. v. MBL, Inc.
Year: 2013
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: H0369296 & H036578
Issue:
  • A Policyholder’s Right to Independent Counsel (“Actual” vs. “Potential” Conflicts)
  • Reservation of Rights
State:
  • California

UP’s position in its amicus brief in this case is that policyholders have a right to independent counsel in cases where the insurer has a “potential” conflict of interest as well as in cases where the insurer’s conflict is actual.. In support of this position,…
Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court of Orange County, CA. (Real Party in Interest Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.)
Year: 2012
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S205889
Issue:
  • Anti-assignment Clause
State:
  • California

This case involves an insurance company’s effort to cut off the coverage/protection rights of one of its insureds based on a clause prohibiting assignments without the insurer’s consent. The insured is a construction company that paid substantial premiums to the insurance company in return for…
Letter Opposing Request for Depublication: Ellena v. Department of Insurance
Year: 2014
Court:
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Regulatory Authority
State:
  • California

In response to the California Department of Insurance’s letter requesting republication, UP wrote in support of the published decision in Ellena v. Department of Insurance. UP argued that the decision that Department of Insurance must review approve and reject diability policy forms under statute. The…
Vandana Upadhyay v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
Year: 2014
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 14-15420
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • California

In this case, the District Court held that the insured’s ERISA action was untimely under the provisions of the Long-Term Disability Plan because the contractual deadline for filing suit ended on July 1, 2010, even though the insured had a right to file her claim…
Street Surfing, LLC v. Great American E&S Ins. Co.
Year: 2014
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 12-5531
Issue:
  • Commercial General Liability
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Under California law, the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. In fact, under Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal. 4th 287, 300 (1993), “the insured must prove the existence of a potential for coverage, while the insurer must establish…
Thomas Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co.
Year: 2014
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S213873
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

Punitive damages awards are subject to heightened Due Process scrutiny after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in State Farm v. Campbell. While the Campbell ruling did not establish a bright-line rule, many state and federal courts, including California, have announced that no more than a…
California Fair Plan Association v. Marlene Garnes
Year: 2015
Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two
Case Number: A143190
Issue:
  • Loss Settlement Valuation for Actual Cash Value Policies
State:
  • California

Under the California Insurance Code, the California Fair Plan, the state’s insurer-of-last-resort, is required to, in the case of a partial loss to a policyholder’s home, pay the lesser of the cost of repair or the policy limits under an actual cash value policy. In…
Letters to California Judicial Council re: Civil Jury Instructions for Bad Faith and Insurer Defense Cost Reimbursement
Year: 2015
Court:
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

UP submitted letters to the California Judicicial Council regarding proposed revisions to California Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”) Nos. 2330-2337 and 2351: First, UP argued that the proposed language of CACI 2330-2337 conflates the standard for “bad faith” claim by collapsing the “unreasonably” and “without proper…
Centex Homes v. St. Paul Ins. Co.
Year: 2015
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: E060057
Issue:
  • Independent (Cumis) Counsel
State:
  • California

UP and the Consumer Attorneys of California submitted a letter supporting a petition for review in an important case involving a policyholder’s right to independent counsel. A policyholder’s right to independent counsel when a conflict arises between the insured and the insurer, both represented by…
Artun Vardanyan v. AMCO Ins. Co.
Year: 2015
Court: California Court of Appeal, Fifth District
Case Number: F069953
Issue:
  • Causation
  • Jury Instructions
State:
  • California

California is among a minority of states that recognize the Efficient Proximate Cause (“EPC”) doctrine. Under the EPC, when multiple perils combine to cause loss of damage to an insured property, even if one cause is excluded, if the efficient proximate cause (the most important/predominant…
Tabares et al v. Equitrust Life Ins. Co.
Year: 2015
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven
Case Number: B254409
Issue:
  • Breach of Contract - Consumer Protection
  • Life Insurance - Indexed Annuities
State:
  • California

Indexed annuities are life insurance products that promise high yields for consumers. However, some of these products are sold with “premium bonuses” that in actuality tax the return of the product over time resulting in little or no net gain. Agents and brokers are paid…
Request for Depublication: Stephens v. Fireman’s Fund
Year: 2015
Court: California Court of Appeal, First District, Division One
Case Number: A135938; A136740
Issue:
  • Replacement Cost Value
  • Tort v. Contract Damages
State:
  • California

UP submitted this letter requesting depublication of the decision in Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (A135938; A136740, Certified for Partial Publication November 24, 2014; 231 Cal.App.4th 1131, modified at 231 Cal.App.4th 1437d) based on legal errors in the opinion with…
Grayson v. Allstate Ins. Co.
Year: 2014
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 14-55959
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

Under California law, the duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in all insurance contracts. When an insured purchases insurance, they expect that their insurance carrier will act in good faith when they themselves tender a claim and also where an injured third-party…
Gordon Blackwell v. Foremost Ins. Co.
Year: 2016
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: H042263
Issue:
  • Appraisal
State:
  • California

UP submitted a letter urging the California Supreme Court to grant review on a very important issue for homeowners: whether an insurance company whose policy contains an appraisal provision as a pre-requisite to a lawsuit, can litigate a case for two years and then on…
Paslay v. State Farm
Year: 2016
Court: California Court of Appeal
Case Number: B265348,
Issue:
State:
  • California

UP submitted a request to depublish a portion of an appellate opinion which improperly made a finding of fact about an insurance bad faith dispute. In the case, the insured, while waiting for the adjuster to come to the house to inspect the damage, began…
Patriot Cleaning Services v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London
Year: 2016
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S233277
Issue:
  • Reasonable Expectations of Coverage
State:
  • California

In a theft case, UP submitted a letter supporting review on two grounds: First, the trial and appellate courts erred in allowing a motion for summary judgment to survive despite a reasonable inference (in this case that the doors to a van could have been…
Association of California Insurance Companies et al. v. Dave Jones, in his capacity as Insurance Commissioner for the State of California
Year: 2016
Court: California Supreme Court (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One)
Case Number: B248622/S226529
Issue:
  • Regulatory Authority
  • Replacement Cost Value
  • Underinsurance
State:
  • California

After every wildfire UP has worked since 1991, over 50% of the victims who thought they were fully insured turned out to be insured for less – often far less – than they needed to cover repairs and rebuilding. We refer to this as “the…
Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Ledesma and Meyer Construction Co., Inc.
Year: 2017
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S236765
Issue:
  • Accident/Occurrence
  • Employee's Torts and Negligence
  • Employer's Vicarious Liability
State:
  • California

California courts have long held that liability insurance covers an employer’s vicarious liability for employee negligence as well as intentional torts. In countless decisions over the years, California courts have upheld coverage for employer’s vicarious liabilities for intentional, willful acts and torts of their employees…