Insurance

Subscribe to Insurance via RSS

Plaintiff’s counsel often employ a range of strategic tactics to defeat diversity jurisdiction because they view federal court as an unfavorable forum. One such tactic is to challenge the amount in controversy—a key requirement for diversity jurisdiction. However, the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Farmers Direct Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Perez, — F.4th —, 2025 WL 716337 (9th Cir. March 6, 2025), makes it difficult to challenge the amount in controversy in declaratory judgment actions filed in federal court involving an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify. In Perez, the Ninth Circuit held that in determining the amount in controversy, district courts may consider (i) the insurer’s potential excess liability and (ii) defense fees and costs that the insurer might incur in the underlying action. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Clarifies Amount in Controversy Requirement in Declaratory Judgment Actions Between Insurers and Their Insureds

50 Exchange Terrace LLC suffered losses from frozen burst pipes that caused water damage to its property and tendered a claim to its insurer, Mount Vernon Specialty Insurance Company. The parties disputed the cost of repairs (i.e., the amount of the loss) and Mount Vernon demanded appraisal to resolve the dispute. Rather than proceeding with appraisal, 50 Exchange filed suit in California state court, asserting that Mount Vernon had wrongfully withheld policy benefits pending the appraisal. Mount Vernon removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The federal district court then dismissed the suit for lack of ripeness and Article III standing.Continue Reading Appraisal of Amount of Loss is a Predicate to Article III, Injury-In-Fact Standing for a Suit Alleging Wrongful Withholding of Policy Benefits

In its latest Covid-era coverage case, John’s Grill, Inc. v. Hartford Financial Services, Group, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that an insured cannot use the “illusory coverage doctrine to transform the policy’s limited virus-related coverage into unlimited virus-related coverage.” In so holding, the Court reiterated the long-standing rule that “explicit and unambiguous policy limitations” will be enforced as written. Continue Reading John’s Grill, Inc. v. Hartford Financial Services, Group, Inc.: Illusory Coverage, Unambiguous Policy Language, and the Enforceability of Limited Coverage Endorsements

In Truck Ins. Exch. v. Kaiser Cement, 321 Cal. Rptr. 3d 761, 549 P.3d 781 (2024), the California Supreme Court answered the question left open by Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Ct., 9 Cal. 5th 215 (2020) (Montrose III): for a continuous injury or damage spanning multiple policy periods, must an insured exhaust all implicated primary policies spanning the entire period of injury or damage prior to accessing any excess policy during that period. Continue Reading The California Supreme Court Confirms Vertical Exhaustion Applies for First-Layer Excess Insurers

In a suspicious insurance claim, it is common for insurers to request that an insured answer questions about the claim at an examination under oath (“EUO”). But a new opinion from the California Court of appeal changes what an insured can record at an EUO. In Myasnyankin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., — Cal. Rptr. 3d –, 2024 WL 340287 (Jan. 30, 2024), the court held that an insured can now demand to videotape not only the person taking the EUO but also anyone else present during the proceeding. In so ruling, the court relied on California Insurance Code section 2071.01(a)(4) which states that an insured “may record the [EUO] examination proceedings in their entirety.” The court interpreted this language to mean that an insured is permitted to record “every element and part of the examination proceeding,” including the insurer’s representatives at an EUO. An insured also does not need to hire a professional videographer. The insured can record the proceeding on a smartphone which “can be placed on a tripod or otherwise propped up and left to record the insurer’s representatives, without the need for a person standing by.” Continue Reading New Decision Gives an Insured the Right to Videotape Examinations Under Oath

The Motor Carrier of Property Permit Act (the “MCPPA”) sets forth insurance requirements for commercial motor carriers in California. There is a dearth of legal authority interpreting the MCPPA, which was adopted in 1996. Although there is case law interpreting analogous provisions under the California Public Utilities Code, the predecessor to the MCPPA, it is unclear whether those cases are still good law. Recently, however, California courts have clarified the interpretation and application of the MCPPA in two respects. Continue Reading California Courts Clarify the Interpretation of the MCPPA

For years, plaintiff’s attorney Montie S. Day has sued California auto insurers, arguing that the policy exclusion precluding coverage for first-party diminution of value damages claims is unenforceable. On November 30, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Uyanik v. Wawanesa (an unpublished decision) affirmed the Northern District of California Court’s dismissal of Ali Uyanik’s (Day’s client) first amended complaint and sanctioned Mr. Day $5,000 for pursuing a frivolous appeal. The Court held that Uyanik’s breach of contract claim was “grounded in the plainly incorrect assertion that California law requires insurance providers to coverer all losses, including diminution of vehicle value and loss of vehicle use, because policy exclusions are ‘void and unenforceable under California law as against public policy and contradict[] the statutes passed by the California Legislature.’” The Court of Appeal also held that Uyanik’s fraud claim failed because bald allegations that Wawanesa sold insurance policies but didn’t intend to indemnify insureds for all loss did not meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards and Uyanik’s CLRA claim failed because “the CLRA does not apply to insurance.” Continue Reading Attorney Challenging First-Party Diminution of Value Claims Sanctioned by Ninth Circuit

In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown orders, policyholders were driving less and insurance company severities and loss ratios were reduced. This resulted in a temporary increase in insurance company profits. Beginning in April 2020, the California Department of Insurance (“DOI”) issued a series of Bulletins, ordering insurers to provide premium refunds to policyholders. Initially, many insurers complied, providing partial refunds during the early months of the pandemic.Continue Reading The Tide Shifts in California Covid Premium Refund Cases