Cal Insurance Regulation

[The following is a summary of recent insurance-related opinions issued in California.]

Independent subcontracting transportation company was not insured under general contractor’s trucker policy as subcontractor was not owner of “hired auto” covered under trucker policy.  American Int’l Underwriters Ins. Co. v. American Gty. and Liability Ins. Co. (6^thCal. App. Dist., 1/28/10) (judgment for umbrella insurer for subcontractor company reversed based upon holding that subcontracting company was not insured under trucker policy and, therefore, umbrella insurer was not entitled to demand initial exhaustion of trucker policy’s limits).  (This opinion is here.)

Liability from “fax blasting” claim not covered as “advertising injury” or “property damage.” State Farm Gen’l Ins. Co. v. JT’s Frames, Inc. (2^ndApp. Dist., Div. 4, 1/27/10)  (claims arising from insured’s sending of tens of thousands of unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of consumer fraud law did not constitute “advertising injury” (because there was no invasion of privacy) or “property damage” (because the sending of tens of thousands of faxes over years was not damage caused by “accident”) under liability insurance policy.)  (This opinion is here.)

Claim for building that was unintentionally built so as to encroach on adjoining property not covered under policy excluding coverage for nonaccidenal occurrences.  Fire Ins. Exch. v. Sup. Ct. (4^thApp. Dist., 1/26/10) (“[b]uilding a structure that encroached onto another’s property is not an accident even if the owners acted in the good faith but mistaken belief that they were legally entitled to build where they did” and, therefore, not covered under homeowner’s policy that did not provide for coverage for non-accidental occurrences.)  (This opinion is here.)

Insurer required “to notify its insured claimant of contractual limitations provisions and other policy provisions that may apply to the claim, regardless of whether the insured is represented by counsel.” Superior Dispatch, Inc. v. Ins. Corp. of New York (2^ndApp. Dist., Div. 3, 1/21/10)  (This opinion is here.)

Claim by competitor against insured pre-paid phone card company for use of point-of-sale advertising that allegedly falsely marketed value provided by insured’s pre-paid cards not covered as “advertising injury” under CGL policy.  Total Call Int’l, Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co. (2^ndApp. Dist., Div. 4, 1/21/10).  (This opinion is here.)

Claim for liability arising from negligent repair and service of bus seat restraint system resulting in death of driver of bus excluded under “products-completed operations hazard” exclusion.  Baker v. Nat’l Interstate Ins. Co. (2^ndApp. Dist., Div. 8, 12/3/09).  (This opinion is here.)

[Disclaimer: 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 or case depends upon the specific facts presented and should be reviewed by an attorney. ]