Decrease Font Size
Increase Font Size

Coverage Alerts

1

Failure of insurer to consider additional information submitted in support of claim sufficient to raise triable issue of fact regarding the reasonableness of the insurer's conduct and defeat a summary judgment motion based on the genuine dispute doctrine.

2

Workers' Compensation insurer addressing workers' compensation claim is not limited to cancellation as remedy for misrepresentations made in an application, but may also seek rescission.



 

3

In the case of a "partial loss" under an open fire insurance policy, the insurer is obligated under Insurance Code section 2051 to pay reasonable cost to repair, less depreciation, and may not limit its payment to fair market value before the loss. 

4

Willful misconduct exclusion which did not apply to defense costs could not support demurrer in coverage action where underlying action was still pending on appeal.  

5

Although insured was responsible to reimburse insurer for amounts paid by insurer in settlement of uncovered claims, it did not have to reimburse amounts paid in settlement which represented attorney's fees and costs within the supplementary payments provision of the policy.

6

Where excess carrier for contractor failed to show injuries were caused by subcontractor, court properly granted summary judgment in favor of subcontractor's excess carrier.

7

Structural damage occurring over time and during policy period resulting in a fire after policy expiration may still require insurer to defend insured.

8

Brandt fees awarded post-verdict should be considered in determining constitutionality of compensatory damages/punitive damages ratio. This decision follows the remand ordered by the California Supreme Court in Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 363.

9

Trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of insurer proper as insurer correctly cancelled auto
policy before accident.

10

Insurer which refused a policy limits demand because it included language related to court ordered restitution did so due to its own misunderstanding of the language and was liable for bad faith refusal to settle.