Newsletter RSS

Mealey's California Insurance

  • March 27, 2025

    Judge Partly Grants, Partly Denies Insureds’ Motion To Strike In Water Damage Suit

    LOS ANGELES — A federal judge in California on March 26 granted in part and denied in part insureds’ motion to strike portions of their insurer’s trial declarations in a dispute over the insureds’ water damage loss.

  • March 25, 2025

    Magistrate Judge Approves Joint Case Management Statement In PFAS Coverage Dispute

    SAN FRANCISCO — After finding that a pollution exclusion bars coverage for some, but not all, underlying lawsuits filed against an insured and alleging injuries related to exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) allegedly contained in aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) that were manufactured and sold by the insured, a California federal magistrate judge approved a joint case management statement submitted by the parties regarding how to adjudicate the hundreds of lawsuits filed against the insured.

  • March 24, 2025

    Suit Alleged Wrongful Acts By Insured, No Coverage Owed, 9th Circuit Affirms

    LAS VEGAS — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that there is no genuine dispute that an underlying lawsuit alleged willful acts by an insured and, therefore, the exclusionary clause in California Insurance Code Section 533 was triggered, affirming a lower federal court’s judgment in favor of the insurer in an coverage dispute arising from underlying claims that the insured illegally stole a competitor’s clients and agents.

  • March 21, 2025

    Auto Insurer’s Failure To Settle Was Not Unreasonable, Panel Majority Says

    PASADENA, Calif. — The majority of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 20 affirmed a district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of an auto insurer after determining that the auto insurer did not act in bad faith in failing to settle a claim on behalf of its insured because the third-party claimant failed to turn over his medical records despite numerous requests from the auto insurer.

  • March 18, 2025

    Insurer Opposes Catholic Diocese’s Motion To File Amicus Brief In Contamination Suit

    SAN FRANCISCO — An insurer on March 17 filed an opposition to a California Catholic diocese’s motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in an insured’s appeal in a groundwater contamination coverage suit, telling the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the diocese should not be granted leave to file an amicus brief because the diocese’s arguments are not relevant to the contamination coverage dispute at issue.

  • March 18, 2025

    Oral Argument Sought In Challenge To Rehab Plan For Workers’ Comp Insurer

    SAN FRANCISCO — Both parties have requested oral argument in the First District California Court of Appeal in a workers’ compensation insurance carrier’s challenge to a nonconsensual rehabilitation plan that was approved as part of conservation proceedings brought by California’s insurance regulator and includes resolution of dozens of reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) lawsuits.

  • March 13, 2025

    $2.2M Judgment Awarded To CGL Insurer In Suit Arising From Hard Rock Hotel Damages

    SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California federal judge entered a $2.2 million judgment in favor of commercial general liability insurer after finding that it has no duty to defend a construction company as an additional insured in its equitable contribution and equitable indemnification lawsuit arising from damages to a Hard Rock Hotel location.

  • March 11, 2025

    Insured Says Reimbursement Owed For Underlying Water Contamination Complaints

    LOS ANGELES — An insured company filed suit in California federal court against its general liability insurer, claiming that the insurer’s refusal to defend it or reimburse it for costs incurred in defending itself against two water contamination suits was a breach of contract and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • March 11, 2025

    Insured’s Water Damage Suit Properly Dismissed For Lack Of Ripeness, Panel Says

    PASADENA, Calif. — A district court properly dismissed an insured’s breach of contract and bad faith suit stemming from a water damage coverage dispute because the insured’s claims are not ripe based on a petition filed by the property insurer in Rhode Island state court to appoint an umpire to conduct an appraisal proceeding, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said in affirming the lower court’s ruling.

  • March 07, 2025

    No E&O Coverage Owed For Negligence Claim, 9th Circuit Affirms

    PASADENA, Calif.— The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 6 affirmed a lower federal court’s ruling that an email exchange a year before an errors and omissions insurance policy’s inception put the insured on notice of circumstances reasonably expected to lead to a claim and, therefore, the insurer has no duty to defend an underlying negligence claim.

  • March 07, 2025

    California Federal Judge Says Claimant Met Burden Of Proving She Is Disabled

    SANTA ANA, Calif. — A disability claimant is owed more than $81,000 in long-term disability (LTD) benefits and is entitled to future LTD benefits because the claimant met her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that she is disabled from performing the duties of any occupation as a result of ongoing cognitive and physical effects caused by chemotherapy treatment, a California federal judge said in granting judgment in favor of the claimant.

  • March 05, 2025

    Fact Witness Testimony Limited In RESPA Class Suit Over Captive Reinsurance Pacts

    FRESNO, Calif. — A federal judge in California barred a fact witness in a long-running Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) case from providing opinion testimony based on scientific, technical or specialized knowledge but allowed testimony regarding performed analysis and data review in connection with risk transfer and reinsurance services that he and a partner were hired to provide.

  • March 04, 2025

    Furniture Delivery Company Asks 9th Circuit To Rehear UCL Coverage Dispute

    PASADENA, Calif. — A furniture delivery company insured has asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reconsider its ruling that an insurer has no duty to defend it against an underlying misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition lawsuit brought by a competitor, challenging the appeal court’s affirmation of a lower federal court’s grant of the insurer’s motion for summary judgment in its breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit.

  • March 03, 2025

    Choice-Of-Law Ruling Issued In Disability Insurance Suit In Federal Court

    NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Granting an insurer’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings in a suit challenging the discontinuation of long-term disability (LTD) benefits, a Connecticut federal judge ruled that the “tort, equity, and contract claims under the common law are not governed by California law” and that three California and North Carolina statutory claims fail as a matter of law.

  • February 27, 2025

    Breach Of Contract, Bad Faith Claims Proceed In Storm Damage Coverage Suit

    LOS ANGELES — Summary judgment in favor of a homeowners insurer on breach of contract and bad faith claims is not warranted in a dispute over coverage for storm damages because the  parties have not conducted any discovery, a California federal judge said in denying the insurer’s motion.

  • February 24, 2025

    Judge Refuses To Dismiss Construction Company’s Cross-Claims Against CGL Insurer

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge in California denied a commercial general liability insurer’s motion to dismiss a construction company insured’s cross-claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and equitable contribution as assignee of an excess insurer that funded its $2,250,000 settlement of an underlying construction defects lawsuit.

  • February 24, 2025

    Default Judgment Entered Against Employer In Suit Over COBRA Notice

    SAN DIEGO — Ruling in part that “failure to provide proper COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] notice and its misrepresentations to Plaintiff [was] the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries,” a California federal judge entered default judgment against an employer on negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims, awarding the plaintiff nearly $500,000 in compensatory damages plus interest and costs but denying attorney fees.

  • February 24, 2025

    Judgment Entered In CGL Insurer’s Favor After Parties Announce Settlement

    SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California entered judgment in favor of a commercial general liability insurer after the insured and its construction company insured notified the court that they have settled the insurer’s declaratory judgment lawsuit disputing coverage for an underlying construction defects lawsuit.

  • February 18, 2025

    Federal Judge Dismisses Subcontractor’s Suit Against Insurer After Parties Settle

    OAKLAND, Calif. — A federal judge in California dismissed with prejudice a subcontractor insured’s breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit against its commercial liability insurer one day after the parties indicated that they have executed their settlement agreement.

  • February 14, 2025

    Panel: No Coverage For Unfair Competition Suit Against Furniture Delivery Company

    PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals determined that an insurer has no duty to defend its furniture delivery company insured against an underlying misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition lawsuit brought by a competitor, affirming a lower federal court’s grant of the insurer’s motion for summary judgment in the insured’s breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit.

  • February 13, 2025

    Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Cannot Proceed Against Insurance Agency

    SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California federal judge granted an insurance agency’s motion to dismiss a negligent misrepresentation claim in a breach of contract and bad faith suit arising out of the denial of a fire damage claim because the insureds failed to provide any specific information regarding the agent who allegedly made a misrepresentation and failed to provide any details regarding the insureds’ interaction with the agent.

  • February 13, 2025

    Triable Issues Exist As To Whether Insurer Paid Attorney Fees As Part Of Settlement

    LOS ANGELES — A California appeals panel held that there are triable issues regarding whether a plaintiff insurer paid any of tenants’ attorney fees as part of the settlement of an underlying lawsuit alleging substandard conditions at the insured’s 28-unit apartment building, reversing the lower court’s judgment as to the summary adjudication of the plaintiff insurer’s claims for declaratory relief and reimbursement of alleged attorney fees that it paid in the underlying settlement, vacating the award and affirming the judgment in all other respects.

  • February 11, 2025

    Insurer Says No Coverage Due For Underlying Toxic Exposure Suit

    LOS ANGELES — A commercial general liability insurer filed suit in California federal court, seeking a declaration that no coverage is owed for an underlying suit alleging that exposure to the insured’s hair styling straightening products caused individuals to be diagnosed with cancer and leukemia because the insured failed to provide timely notice of the suit and had knowledge before the issuance of the policy that its products were unsafe.

  • February 11, 2025

    No Additional Coverage Owed For Insured’s Lost Income Caused By Water Leaks

    PASADENA, Calif. — A district court did not err in confirming an appraisal award and in granting summary judgment in favor of an insurer because the insurer paid the insured more than the amount owed under the policy for lost income incurred as a result of a series of water leaks in the insured’s medical office building, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal said.

  • February 10, 2025

    California Panel Affirms Ruling In Insurer’s Favor In Wildfire Coverage Dispute

    LOS ANGELES — A California appeals panel held that a homeowners insurance policy did not cover the insureds’ claim for wildfire damage to their home, affirming a lower court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the insurer on the insureds’ claims for breach of contract and bad faith.