A district court in California recently found that an insurer was not liable where its insured sought coverage under its Commercial Umbrella policy for loss it suffered as a result of the manufacture of a defective product.  Ruling in favor of the insurer on partial summary judgment, the Northern District Court held that there was

In Zhang v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County, E047207 (Super.Ct No. CIVVS707287), the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether an insured could bring a claim against an insurer under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), based on an insurer’s violations of California’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act (“UIPA”).   Reversing the trial court

The litigation fallout from the Bernard Madoff investment scandal recently entered the realm of insurance when two individuals brought a class action suit against American International Group Inc. (“AIG”) in US District Court in the Southern District of NY, alleging the wrongful denial of coverage for losses suffered as a result of Madoff’s scheme.  The

At least one court, in a recent decision out of California’s second appellate district, has answered no to that question.  In Vidrio v. Hernandez, the court reversed an order imposing sanctions on an insurer for failing to negotiate in good faith at a settlement conference.  The court held that even if the insurer’s conduct

A no voluntary payment clause, commonly found in liability policies, prohibits an insured from seeking indemnification from the insurer for any payment, obligation or expense undertaken without the insurer’s consent.  Included within these provisions is the prohibition against settling a claim without notice to the insurer.  Under California law, courts will enforce such provisions even