Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Insurance

The following summaries are of recent published decisions of the California appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. The summaries are presented without regard to whether Severson & Werson represented a party in the case.

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

As the Probate Code allows a plaintiff to sue the estate of a decedent to prove that the decedent was liable for an obligation covered by his insurance, the insurance company is considered a “party” to the litigation for purposes of 998 settlement offers and therefore can be liable for cost recovery if the insurer does not accept the plaintiff's… Read More

Plaintiff's loss of its city license to operate a bar after a shooting death on its premises qualified as "loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured," a loss expressly covered by its commercial general liability policy. Read More

Insurance regulation defining “‘[k]knowingly committed” as “performed with actual, implied or constructive knowledge, including, but not limited to, that which is implied by operation of law" is a reasonable interpretation of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act and therefore is enforceable. Read More

Auto insurance coverage limit for injury “to each person” applies to any damages, including loss of consortium damages, flowing from a bodily injury to a single person—even if that person is not the only one who suffers from the loss of consortium. Read More

Minnesota's statute that automatically revokes an ex-spouse's revocable designation of the other ex-spouse as a death beneficiary of an insurance policy or pension plan does not violate the federal constitution's Contracts Clause since it implements the former spouse’s presumed intent, thus supporting rather than impairing the contract. Read More

Under a homeowner’s insurance policy’s “personal injury” coverage, the insurer must defend a nuisance claim charging that a fence the insured built on his own property blocked an easement providing access to the plaintiff’s adjoining property. Read More

With a long-tail loss, an excess insurer is not entitled to horizontal exhaustion of all underlying retention amounts for all years in which the loss is incurred; instead, vertical exhaustion applies: that is, once the retention amount for a single year is exhausted, the excess insurer for that year is liable for all sums incurred on the loss (up to… Read More

A subcontractor’s commercial general liability insurance policy did not exclude coverage of water damage to the interiors of modular units it supplied since the damage was not the specific part of the units on which the subcontractor was then working nor the part on which the subcontractor incorrectly performed its work.   Read More

The insured was not entitled to require an excess insurer to pay under its policy just by showing claims remained unpaid after exhausting all underlying policies for the one policy year, as some excess policies’ “other insurance” provisions required exhaustion of insurance issued for other policy years if it covered the same loss.   Read More

A construction subcontractor’s CGL policy did not clearly exclude "completed operations" coverage for an additional insured (here, the developer) or terminate insurance coverage when the subcontractor finished working on the project.   Read More

1 4 5 6 7 8