During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

An excess insurer may not challenge an underlying insurer’s payment decision as outside the scope of coverage and thus as improperly eroding the primary insurer's coverage and prematurely triggering the excess insurer's coverage—unless there is an indication that the payments were motivated by fraud or bad faith or the excess policy contains specific language reserving the excess insurer's right to… Read More

Generally, an insurance agent owes only a regular agent's duties of reasonable care, diligence, and judgment in procuring the insurance requested by an insured.  However, an insurance agent may assume a greater duty to the insured when one of the following three exceptions arise: “(a) the agent misrepresents the nature, extent or scope of the coverage being offered or provided,… Read More

The trial court wrongly granted a health insurer summary judgment on the insured's bad faith and UCL claims.  The insured's son was autistic and, before he turned 7 was given 157 hours a month of insured treatments.  When he turned 7, Magellan reduced the monthly allotment to 57 hours.  On the insured's appeal to the Department of Managed Health Care,… Read More

Under Ins. Code, § 11580.2(f), disputes between insureds and insurers over the amount due under the uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage in an auto policy must be submitted to arbitration, which, however, is limited to the questions of whether the insured is entitled to recover damages from the uninsured or underinsured motorist and the amount of the insured's damages.  CCP… Read More

Travelers insured several subcontractors who worked on two subdivisions developed by Pulte.  As required by their subcontracts, Pulte was made an additional insured under their Travelers policy.  When Pulte was sued for construction defects in the two subdivisions, Travelers provided a defense.  Later, it intervened to sue other subcontractors to recover its defense costs on an equitable subordination theory.  This… Read More

Following the Supreme Court's interpretation of excess insurance policies' other insurance clauses in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (2020) 9 Cal.5th 215, this decision holds that in a case involving coverage for injuries occurring over multiple coverage periods, the insured can reach an excess policy after "vertically" exhausting any primary insurance policies for the same period, but need not… Read More

This decision affirms a judgment against Anthem for violating the Cartwright Act by a vertical boycott.  Anthem announced that it would not accept "wrapped" health insurance plans of the type that Ben-E-Lect offered to small employers, and Anthem said it would terminate any of its agents who attempted to offer Anthem insurance plans in a "wrapped" package, such as those… Read More

The litigation privilege did not immunize coverage counsel's transmission of the claimant's tax returns to the insurer and its forensic accountant, which enabled the claimant to state a viable invasion of privacy claim on the basis that tax returns are privileged. Read More

As the Probate Code allows a plaintiff to sue the estate of a decedent to prove that the decedent was liable for an obligation covered by his insurance, the insurance company is considered a “party” to the litigation for purposes of 998 settlement offers and therefore can be liable for cost recovery if the insurer does not accept the plaintiff's… Read More

1 2 3 6