The insurance industry is bracing itself for the large number of claims arising out of the novel coronavirus pandemic. Depending on the coverage form involved, insurers should have strong coverage defenses to most of these claims.…

Insurance Law Blog

Anti-Slapp Statute Does Not Apply To Allegations That Insurer Improperly Refused To Provide Cumis Counsel

By Thomas Proctor

October 28, 2019

Miller Marital Deduction Trust v. Zurich American Insurance Company, — P.3d –, 2019 WL 5304862; First Appellate District Court of Appeal, Division Three, Case No. A155398 (October 21, 2019). In Miller Marital Deduction Trust v. Zurich American Insurance Company, the California Court of Appeal held that allegations that an insurance company improperly failed to provide independent, “Cumis” counsel did not arise from protected speech and thus were not subject to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Seeking to…

Insurance Law Blog

California Supreme Court Applies Notice-Prejudice Rule to Violation of First-Party Consent Provision as a Predicate to Policy Forfeiture, but Confirms that No Prejudice is Required to Enforce a Third-Party “No Voluntary Payments” Provision

By Jeffrey Crowe

September 6, 2019

Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, — P.3d –, 2019 WL 4065521 (2019); California Supreme Court, Case No. S239510 (Aug. 29, 2019). On certified questions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company examined notice and consent provisions under both first-party and third-party coverage – despite the parties’ dispute as to the type of policy coverage at issue.…

Insurance Law Blog

Court Finds That “Care, Custody Or Control” Exclusion Did Not Negate Coverage For General Contractor Who Shared Jobsite Supervision

By Katherine Sample

September 3, 2019

McMillin Homes Constr., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 35 Cal.App.5th 1042 (2019); Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal, Division One, Case No. D074219 (June 5, 2019).…

Insurance Law Blog

Insurer’s Mistake in Treating Non-Resident Relative as an Insured Under UM Coverage Of Umbrella Policy Did Not Create Coverage by Estoppel

By Jeffrey Crowe

April 17, 2019

Melissa Komorsky v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al. — Cal.Rptr.3d –, 2019 WL 1451275 (Cal. Ct. App., March 1, 2019), Second Appellate District Court of Appeal, Case No. B286443. An uninsured motorist struck and killed Linda Liker, which led to competing claims for uninsured motorist (“UM”) benefits between Ms. Liker’s surviving husband, Alan, and her daughter from a prior marriage, Melissa Komorsky. Melissa did not reside in the Likers’ home.…

Insurance Law Blog

California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations Upheld Following a Near-Decade Long Legal Challenge to their Enforceability

By Todd Padnos

October 1, 2018

Following nearly a decade of uncertainty as to their enforceability, the California Court of Appeal upheld key components of the California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations on September 20, 2018 and affirmed that the California Insurance Commissioner has the authority to penalize insurers for engaging in improper claim settlement practices based upon even a single act of misconduct.…

Insurance Law Blog

Good Fences Don’t Always Make Good Neighbors: California Court of Appeal Holds that “Invasion of the Right of Private Occupancy” May Include Non-Physical Invasion of Rights in Real Property

By Yaas Hejazi

June 1, 2018

In Albert v. Truck Insurance Exchange, No. B278295 (Cal. Ct. App. May 15, 2018), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, considered whether an insurer owed a duty to defend an insured who was sued for erecting a fence that partially blocked an easement providing access to a neighbor’s property. The Court of Appeal concluded that the insurer owed a duty to defend because the policy provided coverage for personal injuries arising out…

Insurance Law Blog

Developer Had No Right to Independent Counsel Based on a Possible Conflict of Interest for Carrier-Appointed Counsel

By Jeffrey Crowe

February 12, 2018

Centex Homes, et al. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, — Cal.Rptr.3d –, 2018 WL 494749 (Jan. 22, 2018), Third Appellate District Court of Appeal, Case No. C081266. Homeowners from two residential developments sued Centex for alleged construction defects. As an additional insured under policies issued to subcontractor Ad Land Venture, Centex tendered the underlying construction defect lawsuit to St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. St. Paul appointed a lawyer to defend…

Insurance Law Blog

Professional Liability Policy Did Not Provide Coverage for Lawsuit that the Insured Knew or Should Have Known About

By Thomas Proctor

January 10, 2018

Admiral Insurance Company v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 18 Cal.App.5th 383 (2017); Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal, Division One, Case No. D072267 (December 12, 2017). In Admiral Insurance Company v. Superior Court of San Diego County, the California Court of Appeal held that a professional liability policy did not provide coverage for a lawsuit where, prior to the inception of the policy, the insured knew, or could have reasonably foreseen, that a…

Insurance Law Blog

California Court of Appeal Affirms Judgment Finding No Duty to Defend Drug Manufacturer in Lawsuits Alleging Increased Opioid Usage

By Oscar Figueroa

December 20, 2017

Update: On February 21, 2018, the California Supreme Court granted Actavis’ petition for review, but has deferred the matter pending disposition of related issues in Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Ledesma and Meyer Construction Co., Case No. S236765.” The Traveler’s Property Casualty Company of America v. Actavis, Inc. — Cal.Rptr.3d –, 2017 WL 5119167 (Nov. 6, 2017); California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, Case No. G053749 In two separate lawsuits, the Counties of…

Insurance Law Blog

Recent Developments in Insurance Law

Blog Authors

Carrier Considerations: Business Interruption Coverage for COVID-19 Losses

Anti-Slapp Statute Does Not Apply To Allegations That Insurer Improperly Refused To Provide Cumis Counsel

California Supreme Court Applies Notice-Prejudice Rule to Violation of First-Party Consent Provision as a Predicate to Policy Forfeiture, but Confirms that No Prejudice is Required to Enforce a Third-Party “No Voluntary Payments” Provision

Court Finds That “Care, Custody Or Control” Exclusion Did Not Negate Coverage For General Contractor Who Shared Jobsite Supervision

Insurer’s Mistake in Treating Non-Resident Relative as an Insured Under UM Coverage Of Umbrella Policy Did Not Create Coverage by Estoppel

California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations Upheld Following a Near-Decade Long Legal Challenge to their Enforceability

Good Fences Don’t Always Make Good Neighbors: California Court of Appeal Holds that “Invasion of the Right of Private Occupancy” May Include Non-Physical Invasion of Rights in Real Property

Developer Had No Right to Independent Counsel Based on a Possible Conflict of Interest for Carrier-Appointed Counsel

Professional Liability Policy Did Not Provide Coverage for Lawsuit that the Insured Knew or Should Have Known About

California Court of Appeal Affirms Judgment Finding No Duty to Defend Drug Manufacturer in Lawsuits Alleging Increased Opioid Usage

Stay Connected

Company

Products

Support

New to the Network