Cases: Insurance

Insurance: Cumis Arbitration Not Justified Where No Agreement Or Determination Exists That Conflict Exists Between Insurer and Insured

Cases: Insurance

Second District, Division 3 Agrees that Arbitration Premature Until Conflict Exists.      Here is a Cumis arbitration case that should be of interest to insurance practitioners.      In Savvy Property Mgt. v. United National Ins. Co., Case No. B214549 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 24, 2010) (unpublished), defendants in a tenant uninhabitability suit tendered defense […]

Insurance: Insurer Not Entitled To Cumis Arbitration Against Insurer Where NO Duty To Defend Determination Has Been Made

Cases: Insurance

  Fourth District, Division 1 So Holds in Recent Published Decision.      Certain Cumis (162 Cal.App.3d 358) fee disputes are subject to arbitration under Civil Code section 2860(c). However, the Fourth District, Division 1, in Intergulf Development v. Superior Court (Interstate Fire & Cas. Co.), Case No. D055459 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 24, 2010)

Insurance Special Fee-Shifting Statute: Consumer Interest Intervener Entitled To Fee Compensation For Upholding Amended Regulations Under Insurance Code Section 1861.10(b)

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

$121,848.16 Compensation Award to Intervener Upheld on Appeal.      In a very scholarly opinion, Presiding Justice Mallano—on behalf of a 3-0 panel—upheld a $121,848.16 compensation award (including attorney’s fees) to a consumer interest intervener in an unsuccessful challenge to certain amended regulations made by insurance companies. The basis for the award was Insurance Code section

Three-Fer From Recent California And ABA Monthly Magazines/Papers

Cases: Class Actions, Cases: Insurance, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Settlement, Off Topics

  No. 1: Ellen Peck Reviews “Fees, Fee Agreements & Arbitrations” in December 2009 Edition of CALIFORNIA BAR JOURNAL.      Ellen R. Peck, an Escondido sole practitioner and former State Bar Court judge, made these points in her recent California Bar Journal article: Except in limited circumstances, most private attorneys have to notify clients they

Insurance And 998 Offers: 998 Offer Made To Only One Out Of Multiple Insureds Imposes No Good Faith Duty On Insurer To Accept Or Provide Separate Counsel

Cases: Insurance, Cases: Section 998

First District, Division 1 Applies Lehto/Strauss to 998 Offers Made to Sued Insureds Rather that Offer Made Directly to Insurer.      Both Lehto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 31 Cal.App.4th 60, 72 (1994) and Strauss v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 26 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1021-1022 (1994) held that an insurer has no “good faith” duty to agree to,

Personal Injury Cases: Liability For Attorney’s Fees Not Includable Under the Made-Whole Rule in Auto Insurance Med-Pay Cases

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Insurance

  California Supreme Court Decides Fee Are Subject to Separate Equitable Apportionment in a Pro Rata Sharing Manner.      Here is one for personal injury/insurance defense cases in boutique first party, no-fault medical payment (med-pay) insurance payment cases. This may narrow our readers who have interest in this post, but here you go anyway.     

Insurance Policy Construction: Second District, Division Three Affirms That Insured Cannot Recover Fees For Defense Of Noncovered Claim Under Supplementary Payment Provisions

Cases: Insurance

Appellate Panel Affirms Trial Court Determination that Insurer Had No Obligation to Pay Hefty Fee Award.      For your insurance coverage practitioners, the next one is for you.      State Farm General Insurance Co. v. Mintarsih, Case No. B202888 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 25, 2009) (certified for publication) decided that an insurer had no

Scroll to Top