A recent California Court of Appeal case, Howard v. American National Fire Insurance Co., 187 Cal. App. 4th 498 (2010), addresses a question that all insurance litigators will find of particular interest: whether an insurer can breach its duty to settle by rejecting a settlement offer that is within the total available limits of
California Appellate Court Rejects Insurer’s Attempt to Apply Multiple Self-Insured Retentions To a Single Lawsuit
In Clarendon America Insurance Company v. North American Capacity Insurance Company, E048176, 4th Dist. Ct. App. (Super. Ct. No. CIVRS701868), a new California Court of Appeal decision, the Fourth Appellate District has rejected an insurer’s attempt to apply multiple self-insured retentions to a single lawsuit.
Clarendon America Insurance Company (“Clarendon”) and North American Capacity
Farella Associate Erica Villanueva to Serve as Co-Chair of BASF Barristers Insurance Section
Farella’s Insurance Practice Group is pleased to announce that associate Erica Villanueva is serving as co-Chair of the BASF Barristers Club Insurance Practice Section for 2010-11.
The Insurance Practice section helps to keep members representing both policyholder and insurer perspectives up-to-date on developments in insurance coverage and practice arising out of a range of losses
California Insureds Should Question the “Conventional Wisdom” Regarding Coverage for Wage and Hour Class Actions
Employment Practices Liability (“EPL”) insurers have been aggressive in denying coverage for “wage and hour” class actions filed in California and elsewhere. Indeed, insureds now frequently assume that their policies afford no coverage for such claims. Depending on the particular statutory violations alleged, however, such class actions often fall within the scope of EPL coverage.
Preparing for a Mediation Involving Coverage Issues
Adequate preparation is essential for any mediation, and mediations involving insurance coverage issues are no exception. Whether the focus of the mediation is the insurance coverage dispute itself, or whether the insurer is attending a mediation of the underlying action (with an expectation that it will fund any settlement), the insured can and should take
Recent California Court of Appeal decision suggests insured should consider answering and cross-complaining before moving to stay insurer’s declaratory relief action
When a liability insurer wishes to avoid all coverage obligations with respect to a claim against its insured, it may seek an adjudication that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the policyholder. If the insurer files for such declaratory relief while the underlying litigation is still pending, California insureds will frequently move to
Narrow Victory For Insurers In 21st Century v. Superior Court: “Made-Whole” Rule Does Not Apply To Insured’s Litigation Costs
A recent California Supreme Court decision, 21st Century Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (Quintana), S154790 (Aug. 24, 2009), clarifies the rules governing an insurer’s right to reimbursement for payments to its insured, after the insured obtains a recovery from the responsible third party. The Court held that while the insured has right to be
New California Supreme Court Decision Reaffirms Concurrent Proximate Cause Rule In Environmental Context
On Monday, March 9, 2009, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in State of California v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London et al., S149988. The Court ruled on numerous issues, all of which were decided favorably for insureds. This particular blog post focuses on the Court’s reaffirmation of the concurrent proximate cause rule in
Continental Court Decision Approves “Stacking” of Consecutive Policy Limits
This week, the California Court of Appeal issued a new decision regarding the “stacking” of policy limits: State of California v. Continental Insurance Company, No. E041425 (Super. Ct. No. 239784). As the Continental court explained, “stacking” generally refers to “treating multiple policies that apply to a single loss as cumulative – as a ‘stack’