Insurance Company Can Require Insured To Obtain Its Consent Before Assigning Interest In Policy.

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 provides:  “An agreement not to transfer the claim of the insured against the insurer after a loss has happened, is void if made before the loss . . .” [Ins. Code §520]. The trial court denied Fluor’s motion for summary adjudication, as well as its invitation to disregard the California Supreme Court’s holding in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934, and Fluor sought extraordinary relief. The appellate court was unimpressed with Fluor’s argument, stating: “During the 130 years since its enactment, the 1872 statute has been cited only once. No one raised it in Henkel. . . .There is a logical reason for this obscurity. The 1982 statute can have no bearing as a ‘clear’ or ‘controlling’ legislative expression on the assignability of liability insurance for the simple reason that liability insurance did not exist in 1872.”  Fluor Corporation v. Sup. Ct. (Hartford Acc. & Ind. Co.) (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; August 30, 2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1506.