Insurance Companies Must Show "Substantial Prejudice" to Deny Claims for a Failure to Comply With the Proof of Loss RequirementNovember 08, 2012 Scott Calvert
Following the August 2009 Station Fire, the lawsuits of over 1,440 policyholders filed against Fire Insurance Exchange (“FIE”) and related insurers were consolidated into one case – Henderson v. Farmers Group, Inc., __ Cal.App.4th __, 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1108 (October 24, 2012). In this case, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, issued an interesting opinion addressing several important issues. In the consolidated lawsuit, the policyholders alleged that FIE improperly denied their claims by asserting either that: (1) the policyholders did not submit sworn proof of loss as required by the fire insurance policies, or (2) that the policyholders submitted delayed notice of loss. The policyholders asserted causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (bad faith) and unfair business practices under section 17200. Given the large number of policyholders, five plaintiffs were selected as representative of the other policyholders and had their claims litigated, while the lawsuits of the other policyholders were stayed.
Why Does The Pollution Exclusion in California Insurance Policies Exclude Asbestos Building Contamination But Not Pesticide Building Contamination?August 22, 2011 Eric Schindler
According to a recent California appellate court decision, a contractor’s negligent release of asbestos fibers during the removal of asbestos-containing acoustical spray in a condominium complex is excluded by the pollution exclusion in a homeowner association’s property and liability policy, despite a 2003 California Supreme Court ruling that a contractor’s negligent spraying of pesticide in an apartment complex is not excluded by a similar pollution exclusion in an apartment owner’s policy. The Villa Los Alamos Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company, __ Cal. App. 4th __, 2011 WL 3586475 (August 17, 2011). How can that be?
Provision Excluding Insurance Coverage For Wrongful Acts of a Coinsured Limited By California Supreme CourtFebruary 22, 2011 Scott Koller
California Insurance Code section 533 provides that an insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the willful act of an insured. This is consistent with California’s public policy of denying coverage for intentional acts of wrongdoing. However, when there is more than one insured, this policy can lead to inequitable results. Case in point is the situation presented in Century National Insurance Company v. Garcia, 2011 Cal. LEXIS 1392 (decided February 17, 2011). In Century, Jesus Garcia, Sr.’s home was damaged when his adult son intentionally started a fire in his bedroom. Garcia Sr. subsequently submitted a claim under his homeowner’s insurance policy issued by Century National Insurance Company (“Century”). Although Garcia was the named insured, his wife and son also qualified as an insured under the policy. Century denied the claim on the grounds that the damage was caused by an intentional wrongful act by an insured. Garcia challenged the denial arguing that the Insurance Code does not bar “innocent insureds” from recovering despite a co-insured’s wrongful acts. At trial, the state court granted Century’s demurrer and Garcia appealed. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Baxter agreed with Garcia and held that the policy provision which precluded…
Because of fairly recent California wild fires and California’s history of rising property values (at least this was the case a few years ago), many California homeowners have found themselves underinsured for fire losses. The California Department of Insurance has been considering new regulations governing standards and training for estimating replacement value on homeowners’ insurance for some time. California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner had previously called for regulations that would provide more comprehensive and reliable estimates of what it might cost to completely rebuild a destroyed home. Such estimates were previously unregulated and led homeowners to believe they needed less coverage than they truly did in the event of a disaster.
In a new case from Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District, Chicago Title Insurance Company v. AMZ Insurance Services; Pacific Specialty Insurance Company, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (September 9, 2010), the California Court of Appeal has given policyholders a good holding on the issues of when a policy binder becomes effective, when an agent acts on behalf of an insurer and what actions constitute bad faith.