Photo of Shanti Eagle

Shanti Eagle

Subscribe to Shanti Eagle's Posts

Shanti represents policyholders in complex insurance coverage disputes. She has experience handling claims under a variety of insurance policies, including general liability, errors and omissions, employment practice liability, homeowners, and directors’ and officers’ policies. Shanti has substantial coverage litigation experience in state and federal courts.

Follow:Read more about Shanti EagleShanti's Linkedin Profile

To combat a perceived litigation tactic by plaintiffs counsel of using settlement demands within policy limits to set up insurers for bad faith, insurance company associations lobbied for statutory clarification to avoid uncertainty around insurers’ duties when faced with time-limited demands.

The result was the enactment of California Code of Civil Procedure Chapter 3.2, Sections 999–999.5, titled “Time-Limited Demands,” which goes into effect Jan. 1, 2023.

Claimants’ time-limited settlement demands often seek the available policy limits and are usually referred to in the industry as “policy limits demands,” though theoretically they could be for an amount below limits. The demands must be reasonable in order to subsequently impose extracontractual liability on an insurer for bad faith failure to settle.

For certain types of claims and policies, Section 999 imposes several new criteria that a presuit demand must comply with to be considered a reasonable offer to settle within policy limits. We’ll call these “Section 999 demands.”…

Continue Reading New Statute Imposes Additional Requirements for Pre-Suit Demands—and Insurers’ Responses

Two phrases combined in a single exclusion—“alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to any violation of any law…” and “as respects… unfair trade practices” could inspire carriers to make trouble for policyholders seeking coverage for consumer protection claims. Fortunately, a recent federal decision recognizes that California rules of policy construction limit the scope of this exclusion, in line with a policyholder’s reasonable expectations of coverage.
Continue Reading “Unfair Trade Practices” Exclusion Does Not Extend to Consumer Protection Claims

A recent California appellate court decision found that a wage and hour exclusion in an Employment Practices Liability Insurance (“EPLI”) policy did not bar coverage for claims under California Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802 alleging failure to reimburse expenses. S. Cal. Pizza Co., LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy No. 11EPL-20208, Case No. G056243, 2019 WL 4572859 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2019), as modified on denial of reh’g (Sept. 20, 2019). This is a significant decision. It gives policyholders an argument that insurers must defend wage and hour suits that include covered allegations of failure to reimburse expenses, as the court in Southern California Pizza found. …
Continue Reading Reimbursement of Employment-Related Expenses Is Not a “Wage and Hour” Claim Within the Meaning of EPLI Exclusion

I recently moderated a Bar Association of San Francisco Insurance Section program co-sponsored with the Cannabis Law Section. The program highlighted recent changes to local insurance requirements and market availability of coverage for cannabis businesses.

Local insurance requirements vary greatly by city and county, and it is important to take this into account—especially if you will be doing business throughout California. While certain coverages are still unavailable (i.e., true outdoor crop insurance) or prohibitively expensive (i.e., quality D&O insurance), one point of optimism is that the insurance market is actually adapting quickly and well to the demand for insurance for this industry. As a result, the panel recommended reviewing and updating your insurance portfolio often with the assistance of a broker who is well versed in the cannabis space.
Continue Reading Insurance for the Cannabis Industry Program Takeaways

Insurers often claim “economic damages” are not covered under a standard commercial general liability (CGL) policy. The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 28 Cal. App. 5th 729, 736 (2018) review and request to depublish denied (Jan. 30, 2019), demonstrates that “loss of use” can be measured by “economic damages”—i.e., loss in profit or diminution in value—so long as they are tied to a property interest.

In Thee Sombrero, Inc., the insured’s negligent security services resulted in the revocation of Thee Sombrero’s permit to use its property as a night club after a patron was allowed to enter without passing through the metal detector, resulting in a fatal shooting. Thee Sombrero sued the security company, and obtained a default judgment. Thee Sombrero then pursued Scottsdale to satisfy the judgment. The trial court found in favor of Scottsdale, but the Court of Appeal reversed, finding that “the loss of the ability to use the property as a nightclub is, by definition, a ‘loss of use’ of ‘tangible property.’ It defies common sense to argue otherwise.” Id.…
Continue Reading Damages for Permit Revocation Constitute Covered “Loss of Use”

A 6th Circuit case decided earlier this year demonstrates how positions taken by insureds in prior litigation can impact or foreclose coverage in subsequent disputes with insurers. See K.V.G. Properties, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 900 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 2018).

In K.V.G. Properties, Inc., K.V.G., was unaware that its tenant was operating a cannabis growing operation. Although Michigan allowed for limited legal marijuana cultivation, there was no evidence the tenant was in compliance with local law. After a DEA investigation resulted in a search warrant, K.V.G. had the tenant evicted from the property. K.V.G. then sought recovery from Westfield under its property policy for extensive damage done to the property by the tenant, including torn out walls, and damage to the HVAC, duct work, and roofing.
Continue Reading Evicting Tenants Over “Illegal” Cannabis Operation Comes Back to Bite Landlords in Coverage Dispute