After a total loss, insureds who built a replacement house at a different location were not entitled to recover extended replacement cost benefits, because the insureds conceded that they did not spend more than the policy’s stated limit, which the … Read More
Where a policy lapsed prior to a loss, and where the insureds and insurer knew the loss had occurred, questions of fact precluded summary disposition of the issue of whether the insurer reinstated the policy with – or without – … Read More
A claim against an insurer for bad faith failure to accept a reasonable settlement demand requires a finding that the insurer acted “unreasonably” in some respect. (Pinto v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 676) Facts Farmers Insurance Exchange issued … Read More
In a continuous injury case, absent an explicit policy provision to the contrary, an insured is entitled to excess coverage once the primary policies specified in the excess policy have been exhausted. (Santa Fe Braun, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of … Read More
Where a tenant’s marijuana grow operation causes a fire, a landlord’s insurer cannot deny coverage unless the insurer shows the landlord knew or had control over the “increased hazard” the tenant caused. (Mosley v. Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (2020) 49 … Read More
A commercial general liability insurer had no duty to defend its insured against a competitor’s antitrust lawsuit alleging fraudulent conduct in obtaining a patent. (Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. KLA-Tencor Corp. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 156) Facts Xitronix Corp. … Read More
In a continuous injury case, an insured is entitled to indemnification under any excess policy once the insured exhausts the directly underlying excess policies in the same policy period. (Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Superior Court (2020) 9 Cal.5th … Read More
A choice of law ruling that an insured obtained in an earlier Rhode Island coverage action did not collaterally or judicially estop the insured from seeking coverage in a later California coverage action. (Textron, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety … Read More
Where an insurer presented evidence that there was a “genuine dispute” about the predominant cause of building damage, the insurer did not act in bad faith by relying on one expert’s “final” opinion, even though that opinion differed somewhat from … Read More
By John Feeley Smith Smith & Feeley LLP Commercial property insurers have been deluged with economic loss claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerous insureds have submitted claims under the business income and/or civil authority coverage. Yet, due to the … Read More
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 116.710, a liability insurer has a right to appeal a default judgment entered against its insured in a small claims action. (Pacific Pioneer Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2020) — Cal.App.5th —) Facts … Read More
A general liability policy’s arbitration clause was binding on an additional insured who was an intended third-party beneficiary of the policy and who sought benefits under the policy. (Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) — Cal.App.5th —) … Read More
To Our Clients and Friends: Last year was filled with a number of interesting developments in property and liability insurance law. In the PDF linked below are summaries of some major cases decided in the last twelve months that may … Read More
A superior court could decide a factual issue necessary to determine coverage under an excess workers’ compensation insurance policy, even if the superior court’s finding might contradict a stipulated fact in an earlier workers’ compensation proceeding. (California Insurance Guarantee Association … Read More
California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, which authorizes the dismissal of a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” did not require dismissal of an insured’s bad faith lawsuit arising from an insurer’s failure to provide independent counsel. (Miller Marital Deduction … Read More
Where an insured established that a policy’s “war” exclusions had “special” meaning based on usage in the insurance industry, the “special” meaning (not the “plain and ordinary” meaning) applied. (Universal Cable Productions, LLC v. Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company (2019 9th … Read More
An employment practice liability policy’s “wage and hour” exclusion did not relieve the insurer of a duty to defend its insured against a class action lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the insured failed to reimburse employees for work-related expenses. … Read More
A customer’s “mislabeling” lawsuit against a prescription drug retailer was not potentially covered under an additional insured endorsement issued by the drug supplier’s general liability insurer. (Target Corp. v. Golden State Ins. Co. Ltd. (2019) — Cal.App.5th —) Facts McKesson … Read More
A homeowners policy’s “business pursuits / rental” exclusion relieved an insurer of any duty to defend its insured against a personal injury lawsuit brought by a long-term tenant. (Terrell v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2019) — Cal.App.5th —) Facts … Read More
California’s common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a fundamental public policy for purposes of choice of law analysis, and the rule applies to consent provisions in first-party insurance policies but not to consent provisions in third-party policies. (Pitzer College v. Indian … Read More