Insurance

To have standing to move to disqualify another party's attorney, the movant must generally be a present or former client of the challenged attorney, or at least a person who shared confidential information with that attorney in the course of a confidential or fiduciary relationship.  Otherwise, the movant is generally not affected by any breach of the attorney's duties of… Read More

The plaintiff insurer did not void its claim for equitable contribution by other insurers allegedly covering the loss by alleging that after paying for the insured's defense, it discovered facts that it claimed showed it owed the insured no coverage.  The duty to defend attaches immediately and is not undermined by later discovery of facts that show coverage was not… Read More

The trial court correctly refused to take judicial notice of insurance policies that were not matters of public record. The existence of a contract between private parties cannot be established by judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452(h). (Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1145.) Read More

The insurer did not breach its policy or the duty of good faith in settling plaintiff's claim which arose from destruction of her house by a wildfire.  Under the policy, she was entitled to the least of (a) the policy limit, (b) the cost to rebuild the same house, or (c) the actual cost paid for reconstruction.  Here, the insurer… Read More

Neither an insurance agent nor an insurance company owes an insured or prospective insured a duty to tell the insured he needs other or additional insurance coverage unless (1) the agent misrepresents the nature, extent or scope of the coverage being offered or provided; (2) there is a request or inquiry by the insured for a particular type or extent… Read More

The insureds were not entitled to Cumis counsel in the underlying personal injury case.  The insurer settled the case within policy limits and had reserved its rights only with respect to damages in excess of policy limits and punitive damages, both of which were clearly not covered--and nothing in the underlying action concerning those damages placed insurance defense counsel in… Read More

While the presumption against retroactive application of new statutes is strong, figuring out what constitutes retroactive application may be difficult.  Here, the statute required a grace period and notice before terminating a life insurance policy for nonpayment of the premium.  Though it changed the terms of the policy, it governed only the insurer's actions after the effective date of the… Read More

Ins. Code 10113.71 and 10113.72 became effective on January 1, 2013.  They require life insurance companies to grant the insured a 60 day grace period after the due date of a premium payment in which to make up the payment and reinstate the policy.  The statutes also require the insurance company to notify the insured of an impending lapse or… Read More

Following Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541 and Pebley v. Santa Clara Organics, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1266,  this decision holds that a plaintiff who has medical insurance but chooses to use out-of-plan doctors for his care is treated for damage purposes as if he were uninsured and may submit the doctors' bills as evidence… Read More

Under Idaho law, a title insurance policy that excluded coverage for claims that were "not shown by the public record" did not exclude coverage of claims that arose from the county's official road maps that described a road through the insured's property.  "Public records" was undefined in the policy and could be reasonably be construed to include official documents brought… Read More