SAN FRANCISCO — Citing “persuasive prior decisions,” the First District California Court of Appeal, Division Four, on Dec. 4 affirmed the denial of a reinsurer’s motion to compel arbitration under a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Luxor Cabs Inc., et al. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., et al., No. A147962, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 4, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8223).
LOS ANGELES — Rejecting an insurer’s petition to proceed with a single arbitrator and a single umpire, a California federal judge on Dec. 3 ordered a reinsurer and the insurer to name umpires in accordance with a reinsurance treaty’s arbitration clause (Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. The Hartford, No. 18-07240, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205345).
SAN FRANCISCO — A disability claimant cannot maintain claims for breach of contract and bad faith based on a 2013 denial of benefits because the applicable statute of limitations for breach of contract and bad faith allegations bars the claims, a California federal judge said Dec. 4 (Theresa Hong v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., No. 18-4039, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205336).
LOS ANGELES — Judgment in favor of an auto insurer on an insured’s bad faith claim was proper because the insurer promptly paid the insured’s claim after learning how much of the insured’s medical expenses would be covered by workers’ compensation insurance, the Second District California Court of Appeal said Nov. 21 (Melissa Case v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. No. B281732, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 4, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7887).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 3 remanded a disability claimant’s suit after determining that the district court must determine the whether the source of a claimant’s disability is physical or mental (Miae Decovich v. Anthem Life Insurance Co., No. 17-15324, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33890).
MERCED, Calif. — As a result of the fires in Paradise, Calif., the California insurance commissioner on Nov. 30 requested to be appointed liquidator for Merced Property & Casualty Co. because the insurer projects to be insolvent from those fires losses (Insurance Commissioner of the state of California v. Merced Property & Casualty Co., No. N/a, Calif. Super., Merced Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In letter briefs filed Nov. 6 at the direction of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Yahoo! Inc. and its commercial general liability (CGL) insurer debate the impact of an August 2017 Ninth Circuit ruling on the present appeal pertaining to insurance coverage for claims brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 17-16452, 9th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insured failed to comply with the Contractors Special Conditions in its insurance policy before an underlying construction defects lawsuit was filed, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Nov. 28, affirming a lower court’s ruling that an insurer has no duty to duty to defend and indemnify (ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company RRG v. Phoenix Contracting Inc. and FHC LLC, No. 17-35861, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33384).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal magistrate judge on Nov. 27 signed a stipulated protective order regarding disclosure and discovery in an insured’s lawsuit arising from flood damage (Alicia Martin v. CSAA Insurance Exchange, et al., No. 17-04066, N.D. Calif.).
SAN DIEGO — In a dispute over a $3.2 million judgment, a principal to an insurance services company argues to a California federal court in a Nov. 21 brief that a reinsurer offers no evidence on its claim of a fraudulent transfer, so seizure of her home or proceeds from the sale of it should be denied (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
FRESNO, Calif. — A federal magistrate judge in California deferred ruling on a third-party claimant’s motion to compel further responses to two discovery requests in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit, ruling that although the discovery requests are relevant, not overly broad, vague and ambiguous and not subject to either attorney-client privilege or privacy under California law, an insurer should be allowed to supplement the record with evidence showing that the two interrogatories are burdensome (Jennifer M. Tucker v. AMCO Insurance Co., No. 17-1761, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197140).
SAN FRANCISCO —Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar II argues in a Nov. 16 brief to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), as a primary plan, is responsible for making payment to insureds of workers’ compensation plans that become insolvent (California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Alex Azar II, et al., Nos. 17-56526 & 17-56528, 9th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Nov. 14 denied a motion to dismiss an insured’s third amended complaint after determining that the insured plausibly alleged that the insurer and its parent company acted in bad faith by engaging in a scheme to hide coverage for a water damage claim from the insured (Tam Vu v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-3594, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194471).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California federal judge on Nov. 6 dismissed a disability claimant’s suit against a long-term disability (LTD) insurer after the parties notified the court that they reached an agreement to dismiss the suit (Karen Compton v. Life Insurance Company of North America, et al., No. 18-184, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192680).
LOS ANGELES — Having previously stayed a breach of contract case against an insolvent insurer pending resolution of the insurer’s liquidation, a California federal judge on Nov. 2 discharged an order to show cause and ordered the insolvent insurer to file another status report in six months (Yancy Alvarez, et al. v. Access General Insurance Co., No. 18-336, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — A California appeals panel on Nov. 9 upheld a trial court judge’s ruling dismissing cross-claims brought by a lawyer accused of insurance fraud, finding that an insurance company’s subpoenas seeking the attorney’s deposition in three unrelated personal injury actions did not constitute an abuse of process under the state’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute or constitute an unfair business practice in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (Dennis Gerald Geselowitz v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. B278637, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., 3rd Div., 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7605).
SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on Nov. 7 granted a reinsurer’s request for a temporary restraining order regarding the sale of property so a reinsurer recover assets it says were fraudulently transferred to avoid payment of a $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — A trial court properly granted an auto insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a suit alleging that the insurer breached its contract and acted in bad faith because there is no triable issue of fact that the damage to the insured’s vehicle was caused by wear and tear, an excluded cause of loss under the policy, the Second District California Court of Appeal said Oct. 30 (Edik Ghadimian v. Geico Casualty Co., No. B281262, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 2, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7459).
SAN DIEGO — In “the latest in a series of increasingly urgent efforts,” a reinsurer on Nov. 2 requests a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued from a California federal court so that the reinsurer can recover assets that were fraudulently transferred to avoid payment of a $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on Nov. 2 granted motions to dismiss claims for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), false advertising law (FAL) and financial elder abuse asserted by a putative class of purchasers of insurance who allege that insurers engaged in an unlawful scheme that involved one insurer profiting from the sale of its policies on behalf of two other insurers, holding that the insureds could amend their UCL and FAL claims to properly plead reliance (Simon Levay, et al. v. AARP Inc., et al., No. 17-09041, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116585).