This article was originally published in Daily Journal on January 4, 2023.

On January 1, 2023, a new California law, Code of Civ. P. § 999, et seq., took effect. This law sets forth various requirements that a policy “time-limited demand” must meet to justify a “bad faith refusal to settle” claim in the event the liability insurer does not accept it. …
Continue Reading New California Law Impacts “Time-Limited Demands” in the Insurance Industry

In Yahoo Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, — Cal. Rptr. 3d —;2022 Cal. LEXIS 6887; 2022 WL 16985647 (Nov. 17, 2022), the California Supreme Court applied established rules of policy interpretation and found that the definition of “personal injury” in Yahoo’s policy was ambiguous. The Court also determined that the rule of contra proferentem applied to a manuscript endorsement negotiated by two sophisticated parties, because the disputed language was standard insurance language. While the holding appears to be case specific, future questions may arise regarding the application of the rule of contra proferentem. …
Continue Reading Yahoo Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pitts.: Revisiting the Rules of Policy Interpretation 

Over the past 10 years, policy limit settlement demands with myriad conditions have become the norm. In many instances, the conditions are imposed in the hope that the insurer will falter in its efforts to comply. Unless there was strict compliance with every condition, the claimants argued, the demand was rejected and the policy was “open.” Recently, however, California courts have begun to recognize common-sense limitations to these “gotcha” tactics. In 2021, Pinto v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 61 Cal. App. 5th 676 (2021) clarified that to be liable for a bad faith failure to settle, the insurer must have acted unreasonably. In…
Continue Reading Negligence is Not Enough/Set-Up Tactics are Disfavored

Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, — F.4th —-, 2021 WL 4486509 (9th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021), Case No. 20-16858.

In March 2020, California state and local authorities issued orders limiting operations of businesses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Mudpie, Inc., a children’s retailer, alleged that it was not able to operate after March 16, 2020, due to these orders.

Mudpie then filed a claim with Travelers, its commercial property insurer, seeking business income and extra expense coverage.  Travelers denied coverage because the limitations on Mudpie’s operations were the result of government orders, not “direct physical…
Continue Reading Insurers Owe No Coverage for COVID-19 Related Business Interruption Losses Under Commercial Property Policies Insuring “Direct Physical Loss of or Damage to Property”

Brett McIsaac v. Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan, A160389 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV-265433) (Filed 4/30/21; certified for publication 5/19/21)

McIsaac had an auto insurance policy with Foremost that provided $100,000 per person in underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage. The policy had a UIM coverage endorsement which read:
“Arbitration [¶] A. If we and an ‘insured’ do not agree: [¶] 1. Whether that person is legally entitled to recover damages under this coverage; or [¶] 2. As to the amount of damages; [¶] then the matter will be settled by arbitration.
McIsaac was involved in an accident caused by…
Continue Reading Insurer Entitled to Arbitrate Disputed UIM Claim Before Insured Could Pursue Bad Faith Action

Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC, et al., 2021 WL 803685 (March 3, 2021); Second Appellate District Court of Appeal, Division Four, Case No. B302344 (March 3, 2021).

California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 Offers to Compromise are an effective and widely-used settlement tool in litigation.  The main objective of a Section 998 Offer “is to encourage settlement by providing a strong financial disincentive to a party – whether it be a plaintiff or a defendant – who fails to achieve a better result than the party could have achieved by accepting his or her opponent’s settlement…
Continue Reading Statutory Offer To Compromise Void Without Express Acceptance Provision

Pinto v. Farmers Ins. Exch., ___ Cal. App. 5th ___ (2021)
Over the past several years, the insurance industry in California has been plagued by waves of “bad faith failure to settle” claims.  These claims arise out of a variety of circumstances and can take many forms, but at their core involve the following: an insured injures a third party; that third party then offers to settle his/her claim for the policy limits; but the insurer, for one reason or another, fails to accept that settlement demand.  Once that happens, the third party claimant then takes the position that…
Continue Reading Keeping the Cap On the Policy: Unreasonable Conduct Is a Necessary Element of a “Bad Faith Failure to Settle” Claim

Thomas Guastello v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company, — Cal.Rptr.3d –, 2021 WL 650878 (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 19, 2021), Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal, Case No. G057714.

Various stakeholders in the Pointe Monarch housing development in Dana Point, California, accused subcontractor C.W. Poss Inc. (“Poss”) of negligently designing and constructing retaining walls.  One such party, Thomas Guastello, sued Poss for damage to a perimeter wall in the backyard of Guastello’s property.  According to Guastello, in January 2010, a retaining wall close to his property designed and constructed by Poss failed and caused soil to collapse and damage a perimeter…
Continue Reading Continuous and Progressive Damage Raised Factual Question as to the Timing of “Occurrence”

The insurance industry is bracing itself for the large number of claims arising out of the novel coronavirus pandemic.  Depending on the coverage form involved, insurers should have strong coverage defenses to most of these claims.
Continue Reading Carrier Considerations: Business Interruption Coverage for COVID-19 Losses

Miller Marital Deduction Trust v. Zurich American Insurance Company, — P.3d –, 2019 WL 5304862; First Appellate District Court of Appeal, Division Three, Case No. A155398 (October 21, 2019).

In Miller Marital Deduction Trust v. Zurich American Insurance Company, the California Court of Appeal held that allegations that an insurance company improperly failed to provide independent, “Cumis” counsel did not arise from protected speech and thus were not subject to California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Seeking to avoid liability for environmental contamination on a property they owned, the Millers sued several prior owners of the property, including the Miller Estate. Zurich retained…
Continue Reading Anti-Slapp Statute Does Not Apply To Allegations That Insurer Improperly Refused To Provide Cumis Counsel

Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, — P.3d –, 2019 WL 4065521 (2019); California Supreme Court, Case No. S239510 (Aug. 29, 2019).

On certified questions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company examined notice and consent provisions under both first-party and third-party coverage – despite the parties’ dispute as to the type of policy coverage at issue.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Applies Notice-Prejudice Rule to Violation of First-Party Consent Provision as a Predicate to Policy Forfeiture, but Confirms that No Prejudice is Required to Enforce a Third-Party “No Voluntary Payments” Provision

McMillin Homes Constr., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 35 Cal.App.5th 1042 (2019); Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal, Division One, Case No. D074219 (June 5, 2019).
Continue Reading Court Finds That “Care, Custody Or Control” Exclusion Did Not Negate Coverage For General Contractor Who Shared Jobsite Supervision

Melissa Komorsky v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al. — Cal.Rptr.3d –, 2019 WL 1451275 (Cal. Ct. App., March 1, 2019), Second Appellate District Court of Appeal, Case No. B286443.

An uninsured motorist struck and killed Linda Liker, which led to competing claims for uninsured motorist (“UM”) benefits between Ms. Liker’s surviving husband, Alan, and her daughter from a prior marriage, Melissa Komorsky. Melissa did not reside in the Likers’ home.
Continue Reading Insurer’s Mistake in Treating Non-Resident Relative as an Insured Under UM Coverage Of Umbrella Policy Did Not Create Coverage by Estoppel