Login
Mission Statement

Dedicated to providing regular (well, as regular as our workload permits) updates concerning legal and regulatory events impacting the regulation of the business of insurance in the State of California with a particular focus upon the property and casualty and workers' compensation lines.

No Attorney-Client Relationship or Legal Advice

This journal is for general informational purposes only.  By using this journal, you agree that the information herein does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and any of the authors or guest contributors of this journal and/or Barger & Wolen LLP.  This journal should not be considered a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state. The information herein may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. The opinions expressed throughout this journal are the opinions of the individual author and/or contributor and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any other author, contributor or any attorney of Barger & Wolen LLP.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

Search

Prior Approval
« CDI Announces New Proposed Revisions to Prior Approval Regs and Invites Pre-Notice Public Discussion | Main | CDI Releases Data on Trends in HO and Auto Insurance Fraud »
Friday
14Nov

Insurance Caselaw Roundup (11/14/08)

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/ManagerHecht 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 CourtIndian 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 ArbitrationBouton 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. ]


EmailEmail Article to Friend