Tapping Corporate Predecessors’ Liability Insurance Policies Just Became Easier Following Fluor Ruling, Westlaw Journal Insurance Coverage, volume 26, issue 2
October 15, 2015
In a landmark decision, the California Supreme Court on August 20, 2015, held that enforcing an anti-assignment clause in an insurance policy as a bar to coverage – where the assignment occurred post-loss – was contrary to California Insurance Code Section 520, which provides that consent-to-assignment clauses are invalid if invoked after a loss has happened. See Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.), Case No. S205889 (Cal. Aug. 20, 2015). The opinion overruled the California Supreme Court’s prior decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 29 Cal. 4th 934 (2003).