On January 1, 2023, California enacted SB1155, a law setting parameters for reasonable time-limited settlement demands. In a prior blog post, Jordan Derringer and Michael Bean discussed the statute and its potential impact on California law. In this post
Insurance Law Blog
Recent Developments in Insurance Law
Blog Authors
Latest from Insurance Law Blog
New California Law Impacts “Time-Limited Demands” in the Insurance Industry
This article was originally published in Daily Journal on January 4, 2023.
On January 1, 2023, a new California law, Code of Civ. P. § 999, et seq., took effect. This law sets forth various requirements that a policy “time-limited…
Yahoo Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pitts.: Revisiting the Rules of Policy Interpretation
In Yahoo Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, — Cal. Rptr. 3d —;2022 Cal. LEXIS 6887; 2022 WL 16985647 (Nov. 17, 2022), the California Supreme Court applied established rules of policy interpretation and found that the definition…
Negligence is Not Enough/Set-Up Tactics are Disfavored
Over the past 10 years, policy limit settlement demands with myriad conditions have become the norm. In many instances, the conditions are imposed in the hope that the insurer will falter in its efforts to comply. Unless there was strict compliance…
Insurers Owe No Coverage for COVID-19 Related Business Interruption Losses Under Commercial Property Policies Insuring “Direct Physical Loss of or Damage to Property”
Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, — F.4th —-, 2021 WL 4486509 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021), Case No. 20-16858.
In March 2020, California state and local authorities issued orders limiting operations of businesses in response to…
Insurer Entitled to Arbitrate Disputed UIM Claim Before Insured Could Pursue Bad Faith Action
Brett McIsaac v. Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan, A160389 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV-265433) (Filed 4/30/21; certified for publication 5/19/21)
McIsaac had an auto insurance policy with Foremost that provided $100,000 per person in underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage.…
Statutory Offer To Compromise Void Without Express Acceptance Provision
Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC, et al., 2021 WL 803685 (March 3, 2021); Second Appellate District Court of Appeal, Division Four, Case No. B302344 (March 3, 2021).
California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 Offers to Compromise…
Keeping the Cap On the Policy: Unreasonable Conduct Is a Necessary Element of a “Bad Faith Failure to Settle” Claim
By Jared LeBeau
Pinto v. Farmers Ins. Exch., ___ Cal. App. 5th ___ (2021)
Over the past several years, the insurance industry in California has been plagued by waves of “bad faith failure to settle” claims. These claims arise out of a…
Continuous and Progressive Damage Raised Factual Question as to the Timing of “Occurrence”
Thomas Guastello v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company, — Cal.Rptr.3d –, 2021 WL 650878 (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 19, 2021), Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal, Case No. G057714.
Various stakeholders in the Pointe Monarch housing development in Dana Point, California,…
Carrier Considerations: Business Interruption Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
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.…