http://www.insurlaw.com Provides concise summaries of recent insurance legislation and appellate decisions. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:37:50 GMT ListGarden Program 1.3.1 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-aug08.htm The California Court of Appeal has held that an insurer was estopped from enforcing a policy’s time limit to collect replacement cost benefits where the insurer engaged in conduct and delays that prevented the insured from satisfying the policy’s replacement condition. (City of Hollister v. Monterey Insurance Company (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 455) Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:37:43 GMT http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-aug08.htm http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-jul08.htm In a recent case arising in a noninsurance context, the California Supreme Court ruled that a contractual indemnity clause required a subcontractor to “defend” a developer against claims involving the subcontractor’s work, even though the subcontractor was later found not negligent and thus had no duty to “indemnify” the developer. Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:47:27 GMT http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-jul08.htm http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-jun08.htm Insurance Code section 11580.2 requires insurers to provide coverage for bodily injury or wrongful death caused by uninsured or underinsured motorists. Section 11580.2(f) provides that “the determination as to whether the insured shall be legally entitled to recover damages, and if so entitled, the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured and the insurer or, in the event of disagreement, by arbitration.” In a recent decision involving two consolidated appeals, the California Supreme Court clarified exactly what issues an arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide during a UM/UIM arbitration. Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:26:39 GMT http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-jun08.htm http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-may08.htm The California Court of Appeal has held that a liability policy’s “cross-suits” exclusion relieved an insurer of any duty to defend its named insured against a suit brought by an additional insured. (Great Western Drywall, Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1033) Wed, 28 May 2008 19:29:11 GMT http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-may08.htm http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-apr08.htm The California Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to a recent California Court of Appeal case that upheld the validity of an “absolute” mold exclusion in a property insurance policy. In De Bruyn v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1213, the Court of Appeal held that even though “sudden and accidental” water damage—a covered peril—was the predominant cause of mold, a policy’s “absolute” mold exclusion was enforceable because the exclusion clearly communicated that mold “however caused” was never covered. Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:29:11 GMT http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-apr08.htm http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-mar08.htm Set forth below is a list of property and casualty insurance cases currently pending in the California Supreme Court, along with a summary of the primary issue(s) to be decided in each case. As the Supreme Court decides these cases in upcoming months, we will keep our readers informed. Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:07:36 GMT http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-mar08.htm http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-feb08.htm The California Court of Appeal has held that even though “sudden and accidental” water damage—a covered peril—was the predominant cause of mold, a policy’s “absolute” mold exclusion was enforceable because the exclusion clearly communicated that mold “however caused” was never covered. (De Bruyn v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1213) Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:11:56 GMT http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-feb08.htm http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-jan08.htm In a recent case, the California Supreme Court ruled that the “genuine issue” rule negates a first-party bad faith claim only if the insurer can demonstrate that it conducted a reasonable investigation before denying the insured’s claim. The Court held that, because a jury reasonably could conclude the insurer’s investigation was not reasonable, the insurer was not entitled to summary judgment and that the case should be tried to a jury. (Wilson v. 21st Century Insurance Company (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713.) Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:55:48 GMT http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-jan08.htm http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-nov07.htm Insurers processing claims arising out of the recent California wildfires fires need to be aware that, if fire is deemed to be the predominant cause of a mudslide, then a mudslide exclusion that seems to be “ironclad” might not be enforceable. Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:55:48 GMT http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-nov07.htm http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-oct07.htm As a result of the recent major fires in Southern California, Governor Schwarzenegger has declared that a state of emergency exists within the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Ventura. Because of the declared state of emergency, certain provisions of the Insurance Code now apply to insurance claims arising out of these fires, including the following. Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:55:48 GMT http://www.insurlaw.com/news/news-oct07.htm