Firemans Fund Insurance Co. vs. City of Lodi, CA
Year 2000
Court U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number 99-158902
Issue
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State
  • California

UP supports lower court decision and educates the court on insurance company tactics, post claims underwriting, etc.

Related Docs
Author UP's brief was written by Eugene R. Anderson, Esq. of Anderson Kill & Olick. PC. Of Counsel: Amy Bach, Esq. and John A. MacDonald, Esq. of Anderson Kill & Olick. PC
Related Cases
Firemans Fund Insurance Co. vs. City of Lodi, CA
Year: 2000
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 99-158902
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • California

UP supports lower court decision and educates the court on insurance company tactics, post claims underwriting, etc.
Hailey vs. California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California
Year: 2006
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3
Case Number: GO35579
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • California

Health and Safety Code section 1389.3 was designed to stop the practice of post-claims underwriting. Blue Shield should not be allowed to engage in post-claims underwriting and rescind its policy when it fails to sufficiently investigate and turns a blind eye to information it either…
Nieto, Julie vs. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company
Year: 2009
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: B214669
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • California

If the Court of Appeal decision cannot be reconciled with California public policy and is inconsistent with all other California authority, which has strongly condemned unlawful post claims underwriting.
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 Malpractice insurer rescinded policy for alleged misrepresentation in the application.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.