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

Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company (“Voyager) issued a commercial liability insurance policy to MRB Construction, Inc. (“MRB Construction”), a framing subcontractor. As is common with such policies, MRB Construction’s policy contained a “blanket” additional insured endorsement for its ongoing operations. Specifically, the policy not only covered MRB Construction as the named insured, but extended “additional insured” status to those persons or organizations “for whom you are performing operations.” Continue Reading Failure to Timely Produce in Discovery Underlying Written Contract with Insured Prevented General Contractor from Establishing Status as an Additional Insured

One of the most powerful weapons an insurance company can use to defeat a bad faith claim is the “genuine dispute” doctrine. Under this doctrine, as long as there was a genuine dispute regarding coverage or the amount owed, the insurer cannot be held liable for having withheld the disputed policy benefits even if it later turned out they were owed. Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Ass’n v. Associated Int’l Ins. Co., 90 Cal.App.4th 335 (2001). Historically, this defense has been applied most commonly in published cases involving disputes over unsettled legal issues or where the insurer’s position was supported by a qualified expert. See e.g., Fraley v. Allstate Ins. Co., 81 Cal.App.4th 1282 (2000); Guebara v. Allstate Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2001); Opsal v. USAA, 2 Cal.App.4th 1197 (1991).Continue Reading New Insurance Law: The Extension of California’s “Genuine Dispute” Doctrine to Disputes Over the Value of General Damages In UM/UIM Claims Handling

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

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 loss of or damage to” property, as required by the policy.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 an underinsured motorist.  After recovering the $15,000 limit from the at fault driver’s insurer, McIsaac made a UIM claim to Foremost and demanded the remaining $85,000 UIM limit. Foremost investigated the claim, and made a settlement offer that was less than the policy limit. McIsaac then demanded UIM arbitration. Foremost served discovery requests and attempted to take McIsaac’s deposition in the arbitration proceedings.  McIsaac did not appear for his noticed deposition and, instead, filed a civil suit against Foremost for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and bad faith.  McIsaac alleged that Foremost had failed to adequately investigate the UIM claim and improperly attempted to settle it for less than the claim was worth.
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 offer.”  Bank of San Pedro v. Sup. Ct., 3 Cal.4th 797, 804 (1992).  In the event an offeree rejects a Section 998 Offer and fails to achieve a better result at trial, Section 998 shifts certain costs to the offeree, including the offeror’s reasonable expert costs.  This case answers whether acceptance of a Section 998 Offer, served without a required acceptance provision, gives rise to a valid judgment.  It does not.
Continue Reading Statutory Offer To Compromise Void Without Express Acceptance Provision