Cal Insurance Regulation

The following is a list of recent insurance-related opinions issued in California:

Owner Who Could No Longer Work "Hands On" Held not "Totally Disabled" under Disability Policy to Perform Listed Duties of Buyer/Manager:  Hecht v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co., ___ Cal. App. 4th __ (2nd App. Dist. Div. 6 11/5/08):  Based upon Erreca v West States Life Ins. Co., 19 Cal. 2d 388 (1942), the trial court ruled that there were no triable issues of fact that appellant was not "totally disabled" to handle duties listed as "buyer/manager/office operations" though plaintiff owner could no longer perform "hands on" work due to chronic pain and lessened strength.  Court of Appeal reviewed de novo and affirmed the trial court's finding.  [Opinion here.]

Return of Premium on Surrendered Bail Bond not Permitted Where Remand was by Trial Court:  Indian Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company v. Alexander, ___ Cal. App. 4th ___ (2nd App. Dist. Div. 8 11/4/08) (holding that insurer and bail bond company was not required to refund premium for bail bond where criminal defendant was remanded to custody by trial court, not bail bond company, for out-of-state warrant).  [Opinion here.]

Non-Arbitrable Question of Whether Claimant for UM Benefits is "Insured" Can Be Addressed by Court in Proceeding Initated by Petition to Compel Arbitration:  Bouton v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (4th App. Dist. Div. 1 10/7/08):  Appellate court reversed trial court's denial of petition to compel Section 11580.2(f) arbitration of UM benefits.  While trial court denied petition on ground that it sought arbitration of non-aribtrable question of petitioner's status as "insured," appellate court held that trial court could and should have determined this question and that petitioner need not have filed a separate declaratory relief action to ascertain ability to obtain UM benefits.  [Opinion here.]

[Please note that this post does not constitute legal advice and provides only the author's own snapshot view of the cited opinion. No warranties are made as to the accuracy of the author's view of the opinion or as to its legal effect (including, but not limited to, whether it may be subsequently modified, depublished, and/or overruled). The import and applicability of a cited opinion to an actual matter depends upon the specific facts presented and should be reviewed by an attorney. ]

The following is a list of recent insurance-related opinions issued in California:

Right to Arbitrate UM/UIM Disputes Held Not to be Bar to Wrongful Pre-Arbitration Handling of Claim: Brehm IV v. 21st Century Ins. Co., ___ Cal. App. 4th ___ (2nd App. Dist. Div. 7, 9/16/08) (reversing lower court’s sustaining of demurrer to claimed breach of the implied covenant of good-faith and fair dealing on ground that plaintiff alleged facts demonstrating lack of good faith conduct in resolving claim for UIM benefits and holding that exercising of right to arbitration provided under Cal. Ins. Code 11580.26(b) did not preclude bad-faith claim based upon an insurer’s alleged tortious pre-arbitration handling of the claim). [Opinion here.]

Recoverability of Damages Caused by Driver of Purchased Vehicle under Selling Auto Dealer’s “Garage Operation” Liability Policy: Spangle v. Farmers Insurance Exchange , ___ Cal. App. 4th ___ (2nd App. Dist. 8/29/08) (reversing lower court’s grant of summary judgment against plaintiff on grounds that there was a triable issue of material fact as to whether son of father who purchased a vehicle from dealership was “insured” (as “permissive user”) under dealership’s “garage operations” liability policy and holding that accident caused by son arose from “use” of the car that was covered as a “garage operation”). [Opinion here.]

[ Please note that this post does not constitute legal advice and provides only the author's own snapshot view of the cited opinion. No warranties are made as to the accuracy of the author's view of the opinion or as to its legal effect (including, but not limited to, whether it may be subsequently modified, depublished, and/or overruled). The import and applicability of a cited opinion to an actual matter depends upon the specific facts presented and should be reviewed by an attorney. ]

The following is a list of recent insurance-related opinions issued in California this year:

Triggering of Section 11580.2 Coverage: Explorer Insurance Company v. Gonzalez , ___ Cal. App. 4^th ___ (3^rd App. Dist., July 16, 2008) (holding that tortfeasor was not “underinsured” to trigger underinsurance coverage where injured person’s policy provided coverage up to “$100,000 for all damages from bodily injury sustained by any one person in a single accident” and tortfeasor’s policy provided “combined” coverage up to “$100,000 “for all bodily injury and property damage caused by any single accident.”). [Opinion here.]

Rescission of Annuity Contract & Mistake of Fact: Grenall v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., ___ Cal. App. 4^th ___ (1^st App. Dist., July 25, 2008) (affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer and holding that purchaser of annuity contract could not rely upon her mistaken belief as to her life expectancy as a “mistake of fact” to rescind annuity contract). [Opinion here.]

Binding Effect of Insured’s Discovery Responses on Insurer in Subrogation Action: Great American Insurance Companies v. Gordon Trucking, Inc. , __ Cal. App. 4^th ___ (5^th App. Dist., July 29, 2008) (reversing summary judgment entered against insurer on the ground, in part, that insured’s factually devoid discovery responses was not binding on insurer for purposes of summary judgment). [Opinion here.]

Estoppel to Deny Benefits under Commercial Policy: City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co. , ___ Cal. App. 4^th ___ (6^th App. Dist., July 29, 2008) (affirming judgment against insurer and estopping insurer from relying upon condition precedent to obtaining “functional replacement value” benefit (here, requiring that insured enter into contract to repair or replace a building within 180 days after loss) under commercial policy where insurer determined to have failed to cooperate with insured to comply with condition). [Opinion here.]

[Please note that this post does not constitute legal advice and provides only the author's own snapshot view of the cited opinion. No warranties are made as to the accuracy of the author's view of the opinion or as to its legal effect (including, but not limited to, whether it may be subsequently modified, depublished, and/or overruled). The import and applicability of a cited opinion to an actual matter depends upon the specific facts presented and should be reviewed by an attorney.]