In an action by an insured against an insurance company which denied a claim, plaintiff requested that the trial court give a standard jury instruction explaining that, when a loss is caused by a combination of covered and excluded risks, the loss is covered if the most important or predominant cause is a covered risk. (CACI No. 2306.) Defendant instead proposed a special jury instruction placing on plaintiff the burden of proving the collapse of the house was “caused only by one or more” of the perils listed in the policy, and that there was no coverage if the cause of the collapse involved any peril other than those listed.
While driving a GMC pickup truck owned by her father, a 17-year-old got into an accident. However, even though the daughter was the only one to drive the pickup, the father had excluded his daughter from insurance coverage in order to save money on premium payments. The daughter’s mother, who is the ex-wife of the father, had insurance on her own vehicles, but not the GMC.
One Fluor Corp. assigned its rights under liability policies to another Fluor Corp. when they underwent complex corporate restructuring. In a declaratory relief action, the liability insurer objected that its approval was not given pursuant to a consent to assignment provision in the policy. Fluor contended the provision was void under an 1872 statute which […]
The trial court approved transfer of structured settlement payments to a factoring company and ordered the payor insurance company to send the funds directly to the factor, and the insurance company appealed. The Structured Settlement Protection Act [SSPA; Insurance Code section 10134 et seq.] was passed to protect structured settlement payees from exploitation by factoring […]
The question tackled by the California Supreme Court here is that after an insurance company is compelled by a court order to provide independent counsel to defend its insured in a third-party action pursuant to San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358 [208 Cal.Rptr. 494], and the insurer […]
A famous inventor’s estate alleged the commercial use of the inventor’s name was not authorized after defendant manufactured and distributed several products using the name Buckyball, allegedly without permission or payment. Defendant tendered defense of the action to its insurance company. The insurance company agreed to defend under a reservation of rights and Cumis counsel […]
Five days after treatment at a breast center for a lump on her breast which proved to be cancerous as she continued her treatment, plaintiff applied for medical insurance. The questions on the application included whether she had “received any professional advice or treatment . . . from a licensed health practitioner” or “had any […]
When she was 17 years old, plaintiff was invited to a party by several members of a college baseball team. She claims that upon her arrival, she was given shots of hard liquor in quick succession, and later was assaulted by an unknown number of men as she lay unconscious in a room. Three women […]
After a food company’s frozen ground beef was ordered recalled by the Department of Agriculture [USDA], the food company made a claim under its Contamination Products Insurance policy issued by defendant insurers. Coverage was denied on various grounds, and the food company sued for breach of contract and bad faith. Finding no triable issues of […]
After surgery, a patient suffered an infection. The bacteria that infected the patient’s knee apparently survived the sterilization process at the surgical facility. The bacteria was found on a surgical sponge. The doctor paid the patient $4,118.23 for the medical expenses he incurred for treatment of the infection. Fifteen months later, the patient sued the […]