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 insurer may waive the insured's forfeiture of the policy through non-payment of the premium even though a loss has occurred during the period between lapse of the policy due to non-payment and reinstatement upon late payment of the premium.  The loss-in-progress rule (Ins. Code 22, 250) does not prevent the insurer from waiving the forfeiture in this situation because… Read More

Ins. Code 533.5 provides that no insurer (no matter what the insurance policy says) owes any duty to indemnify or defend a suit by the Attorney General, a district attorney or city or county counsel to recover a fine, penalty or restitution for a violation of B&P Code 17200 or 17500.  This decision holds that the statute does not violate… Read More

Over a vigorous dissent, the majority holds that the adult daughter of the insureds under this homeowner's insurance policy does not have standing to sue the insurer for bad faith in regard to coverage for damage to the daughter's personal property that was damaged while in the insured premises.  Only the parents were named insureds under the policy, which expressly… Read More

Kaiser adequately proved that Kuntz's decedent enrolled with Kaiser under a CalPERS medical insurance plan which included an arbitration clause.  Kaiser showed that CalPERS keeps the individual enrollment forms, just sending Kaiser electronic enrollment information.  Kaiser's electronic enrollment information showed that Kuntz's decedent had been enrolled in the Kaiser health plan continuously since 1983.  Kaiser was not required to show… Read More

For purposes of unemployment insurance, the test set forth in G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 governs the determination whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, not the more employee-friendly ABC test of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903.  Nevertheless, in this case, substantial… Read More

An insurer may be liable in bad faith if it fails to settle within policy limits when given the opportunity to do so.  This decision holds that to pursue a bad faith claim on that basis, it is not necessary for the insured to show that the claimant actually make a demand for settlement at or under policy limits.  Following… Read More

Ins. Code 12414.26 does not immunize a title insurer from liability with respect to rates it has not filed with the Insurance Commissioner.  The section provides:  “No act done, action taken, or agreement made pursuant to the authority conferred by Article 5.5 [dealing with rate filing and regulation] . . . of this chapter shall constitute a violation of or… Read More

It is not per se a breach of the insurer's duty of good faith for it to fail to accept a reasonable settlement offer within policy limits.  Accordingly, to support a bad faith judgment against the insurer, the jury must find that the insurer acted unreasonably in rejecting (or failing to accept) even a reasonable settlement offer within policy limits. … Read More

Following Lippitt v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (C.D.Cal. 2020) 2020 U.S. Dist. Lexis 122881, this decision holds that Civ. Code 2954.8 does not apply to (or require payment of interest on) hazard insurance proceeds that a lender or loan servicer holds pending the borrower/insured's rebulding or repairing the premises that secures his loan.  Section 2954.8 “applies to common escrows maintained to… Read More

Having secured a default judgment against the contractor that build a retaining wall on adjacent property which collapsed damaging plaintiff's property, plaintiff sued the contractor's general liability insurer.  This decision holds that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in the insurer's favor.  The insurance policy was an occurrence policy.  With a continuing loss, coverage attaches when the damage… Read More

1 2 3 8