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
« California Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review of Medina Decision and Requests for Depublication | Main | Insurance Caselaw Roundup (8/19/08) »
Tuesday
16Sep

Insurance Caselaw Roundup (9/16/08)

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. ]