INSURANCE LAW
browse other subjects

Boghos v. Lloyd's of London
S117735 (H024481) 109 Cal.App.4th 1728
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Did a "service of suit" clause in a disability insurance policy, under which the insurer consented to court jurisdiction in the event of a dispute over failure to pay claims, apply to prevent application of a contractual arbitration provision, where the insured sued the insurer following the insurer’s decision to discontinue paying disability payments after previously commencing payment? 9/24/03

] Boghos v. Lloyd's of London
S117735 (H024481) 109 Cal.App.4th 1728
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Did a "service of suit" clause in a disability insurance policy, under which the insurer consented to court jurisdiction in the event of a dispute over failure to pay claims, apply to prevent application of a contractual arbitration provision, where the insured sued the insurer following the insurer’s decision to discontinue paying disability payments after previously commencing payment? 9/24/03

Parnell v. Adventist Health System/West
S114888 (F038004) 106 Cal.App.4th 580
Petition on review after reversal of judgment. Question presented: Was a hospital that had received full payment for services under the terms of its contract with a medical insurance provider entitled to assert a lien against any recovery from a third party tortfeasor in order to recover the difference between the insurance payment and the hospital’s "usual and customary" charges for similar services? 6/11/03 (Editor’s note: Initially, the court ordered briefing deferred. On August 20, 2003, the court issued an order directing that the case be briefed on the merits.)

O'Riordan v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Company
S115495 (C037789) Unpublished
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Should an insurer be estopped from rescinding a policy of insurance after misrepresentations made by an agent when assisting an insured in completing an insurance application? Should an insurer be charged with knowledge of good faith statements by its insured to the insurer’s agent? 6/18/03

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Ontario Aircraft Services, Inc.
S113305 (B156158) 104 Cal.App.4th 1053
Petition for review after reversal of judgment. Question presented: Can an insurer's failure to inform a third party claimant of the applicable statute of limitations pertaining to the claim serve to estop the insurer from relying on the statute of limitations in defense of the claim? 4/9/03

County of San Diego v. ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company
S114778 (D038707) 106 Cal.App.4th 349
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Did the court of appeal err in holding that a nonstandard third-party liability policy’s coverage for "damages" did not encompass the insured’s payment of claims that were neither litigated in court nor approved by the insurer? 4/23/03

Powerine Oil Company, Inc. v. Superior Court (Central National Insurance Company)
S113295 (B156216) 104 Cal.App.4th 957
Petition for review after grant of petition for writ of mandate. Question presented: Did an excess/umbrella liability insurer have a duty to indemnify an insured for costs incurred as a result of a government-ordered abatement and cleanup of environmental pollution? 4/23/03

Home Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (Montrose Chemical Corp.)
S110328 (B157650); 101Cal.App.4th 515
Petition for review after grant of petition for writ of mandate. Question presented: Were the interests of primary insurer and excess insurer defendants sufficiently diverse to warrant allowing the insurers to make separate Code Civ. Proc. § 170.6 peremptory challenges to assigned judges? 11/13/02

Julian v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company
S109735 (B149088); 100Cal.App.4th, 811
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: Did a weather provision in an all-risk homeowners insurance policy, which stated that loss caused by weather conditions was excluded only if the weather conditions contributed to another excluded peril, violate Insurance Code § 530 and the principle of the efficient proximate cause of loss? 10/30/02

E.M.M.I. Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company
S109609 (B152740); 100 Cal.App.4th, 460
Petition for review after affirmance of judgment. Question presented: did a jeweler's block insurance policy, which provided coverage when a jeweler's employee was "in or upon" his vehicle, apply to indemnify a theft loss that occurred when a thief drove away a car containing jewelry while a jeweler's employee was standing directly behind the car? 10/23/02

Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones
S107855 (B151016; F029400; 98 Cal.App.4th 434)
Petition for review after reversal of judgment. Question presented: Can an insured state a tort claim for bad faith breach of the insurer’s duty of good faith and fair dealing where the sole dispute between the parties is the insurer’s assessment of premiums for annual liability coverage? 8/14/02

Bechtel Petroleum Operations Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company
S105776 (B140133; 96 Cal.App.4th 571, mod. 97 Cal.App.4th 469a.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment in a civil action. Further action in this matter is deferred pending disposition of MacKinnon v. Truck Insurance Exchange, S104543, which includes the following issue: Did a commercial comprehensive general liability insurance policy exclusion for pollution serve to exclude coverage for third party personal injury claims arising from the spraying of an apartment building with an insecticide to exterminate yellow jackets? The request for judicial notice is denied as moot. 5/15/02

Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
S104851 (G028171; 95 Cal. App. 4th 588)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: What standards are to be used in determining whether an automobile liability insurance policy's limitation on coverage for "permissive users" was fatally inconspicuous and therefore unenforceable? 5/1/02

McKinnon v. Truck Insurance Exchange
S104543 (E028662; 95 Cal. App. 4th 235)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment in a civil action. This case includes the following issue: Did a commercial comprehensive general liability insurance policy exclusion for pollution serve to exclude coverage for third party personal injury claims arising from the spraying of an apartment building with an insecticide to exterminate yellow jackets? 5/1/02

Hameid v. National Fire Insurance of Hartford
S104157 (G026525; 94 Cal.App.4th 1155, mod. 95 Cal.App.4th 580a.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the "advertising injury" coverage of a comprehensive general liability insurance policy give rise to a duty to defend the insured in an action alleging that the insured engaged in unfair competition by obtaining a competitor's customer list and customer preference information and soliciting those customers? 4/10/02

Walia v. Aetna, Inc.
S103311 (A091221; 93 Cal. App. 4th 1213.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., S097308. 2/27/02
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Low
S102251 (A093193; 92 Cal.App.4th 1169.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the summary judgment in a civil action. Issues presented include whether Insurance Code § 1861.07 abrogates trade secret rights. 1/16/02
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co.
S099647 (B142811; 90 Cal.App.4th 149.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order dismissing a civil action. This case includes the issue of whether a liability insurer has a duty to defend its insured when the insured has brought an action for damages against a third party, and the third party, in an answer to the insured's complaint, raises an affirmative defense asserting that the third party is entitled to an offset for damages that allegedly are owed to the third party by the insured. 10/24/01
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

Alpha Therapeutic Corp. v. Home Insurance Co.
S099962 (B134257; 90 Cal.App.4th 330.)
Review dismissed as improvidently granted (March 13, 2002). 10/17/01

Musser v. Provencher
S099938 (A088934; 90 Cal.App.4th 545.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment of nonsuit of a civil action. This case concerns whether an attorney can sue co-counsel for indemnification of damages for legal malpractice and, if so, whether a liability insurer that paid sums to settle a malpractice action can pursue a claim in subrogation against its insured's co-counsel. 9/19/01
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

Sherman v. Allstate Insurance Company
S099619 (B134398; 90 Cal.App.4th 121.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in a civil action. This case concerns whether (1) an unnamed class member who does not opt out of a class action and who objects to the proposed settlement of the action must intervene in order to have standing to appeal the trial court's approval of the settlement, and (2) if so, whether such a requirement is a new rule to be applied prospectively only. 9/12/01
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

Olszewski v. Scrippshealth
S098409 (D034197; 88 Cal.App.4th 1268.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal modified and affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case concerns (1) whether Welfare and Institutions Code § 14124.791, which permits a healthcare provider that has provided services to a Medi-Cal patient to impose a lien upon a judgment obtained by the patient from a third party tortfeasor, is preempted by federal law, and, if so, (2) whether such a patient can maintain an action against a healthcare provider for violation of the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) based upon the provider's imposition of such a lien before the statute had been held invalid. 8/29/01
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

Henkel Corp. v. Lloyds of London
S098242 (B134742; 88 Cal.App.4th 876.)
Petitions for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment in a civil action. Issues presented include whether a successor corporation is entitled to coverage under a predecessor corporation's liability policies for claims accruing before transfer of the business to the successor if the policies were not assigned to the successor and the predecessor cannot be sued on the claims. 7/18/01
Read the Case Summary
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

Kearney & O'Banion v. State Compensation
S091643 (A088078)
Unpublished opinion. Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment in a civil action. This case concerns whether workers' compensation insurers can rely upon Insurance Code §11758 to provide them with immunity from their intentional wrongful conduct occurring over a period of time in excess of ten years. 11/1/00
Read the Case Summary
Update: Review transferred to the Court of Appeal on 05/16/01.

Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Co.
S087346 (A085219; 78 Cal.App.4th 640.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment in a civil action. This case concerns whether, when a liability insurer rejects a reasonable settlement offer and the insured thereafter settles with the claimant without the insurer's consent, stipulates to an excess judgment, obtains a good-faith determination and assigns its rights against the insurer to the claimant, the insurer may be held liable for the amount of the stipulated judgment in a subsequent action for bad faith refusal to settle. 05/31/00
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

Dart Industries, Inc., v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.
S086518 (B129601; 77 Cal.App.4th 916.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case concerns whether and, if so to what extent, an insured, seeking to establish an insurer's duties under a lost insurance policy, must prove the specific language of the policy. 05/24/00
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion

Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affairs
S086696. (E022817; 77 Cal.App.4th 1371.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a civil case. This case concerns whether the disability coverage the Department of Veterans Affairs provides to cover a home mortgage made by the Department is "insurance" subject to the Insurance Code provisions regarding rescission. 05/10/00
Read the Court of Appeal Opinion
Update: Decision issued on 03/08/01.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Superior Court (Powerine Oil Co.)
Review Granted: Concerns whether an oil company's liability insurers have a duty to indemnify the company for costs it incurred in complying with binding state and federal environmental agencies' cleanup and remediation orders. 02/16/00
Update: Decision issued on 02/01/01.