Photo of Jordan Derringer

Jordan Derringer

Subscribe to Jordan Derringer's Posts

Jordan Derringer is a special counsel in the Business Trial Practice Group in the firm's San Diego office.

Contact:Read more about Jordan Derringer

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

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 On November 30, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Uyanik v. Wawanesa (an unpublished decision) affirmed the Northern District of California Court’s dismissal of Ali Uyanik’s (Day’s client) first amended complaint and sanctioned Mr.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 Bennett v. Ohio Nat’l Life Assur. Corp., 92 Cal. App. 5th 723, the California Court of Appeal addressed when the statute of limitations runs for a disability insurance claim. The Court held that the statute of limitations for a disability claim did not accrue until every element of the cause of action – including damages – was complete. Therefore, in Bennett, the statute of limitations did not begin to run at the time of the denial, but years later when Ohio National stopped making disability payments.Continue Reading A Primer on When a Cause of Action Accrues for Statute of Limitations Purposes

In an issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Allstate and held that the two-year statute of limitations for bad faith claims arising out of an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim begins to run when the claimant should have known about the insurer’s alleged bad faith acts, rather than when the claim is resolved. In Marinelarena v. Allstate Northbrook Indem. Co., 2023 WL 3033498 (9th Cir. 2023), the plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries in a 2016 car accident with a hit and run driver. Two years later, in January 2018, Marinelarena made a policy limit demand for uninsured motorist benefits. Allstate declined the demand and insisted on taking steps to further investigate the claim. Eventually, because the parties could not agree on the value of the claim, they proceeded to uninsured motorist or UM arbitration, after which the arbitrator issued an award in Marinelarena’s favor. Allstate immediately paid the award.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Confirms that the Two-Year Statute of Limitations in a Bad Faith UM/UIM Claim Begins when the Insured Should Have Known About the Insurer’s Alleged Bad Faith Acts

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 Palma v. Mercury Ins. Co., 2022 WL 3592722, issued on August 23, 2022, the Court of Appeal expressed its distaste for gamesmanship that is designed to prevent a settlement that an insurer is attempting to consummate.Continue Reading Negligence is Not Enough/Set-Up Tactics are Disfavored