Policyholder Perspective

Recent Posts from Policyholder Perspective

• Ninth Circuit Refuses to Overturn Award to Insured, Bad Faith Action Still Pending

  The City of Long Beach got some good news earlier this month when the Ninth Circuit rejected the insurer’s petition for rehearing in its insurance coverage dispute with the Insurance Co. of the State of…

• 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…

• AIG Policyholders Seek Coverage for Maddoff Losses

  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…

• Global Warming Litigation: New Environmental Policies Lead To New Coverage Issues

  Global warming litigation continues, but President Obama’s new environmental policies likely will change its path. Insureds should consider their risks in light of these new policies to determine whether their present insurance programs provide adequate…

• Does the insured have a "duty to mitigate" if the insurer breaches its obligations to the insured? Clearly not.

  The law imposes serious consequences on insurers for breaches of their duties. If a carrier refuses to defend a lawsuit, the insurer can be held liable for any resulting default judgment. If the carrier refuses…

• Do California Courts Have Authority to Sanction Insurers for Bad Faith Settlement Negotiation?

  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…

• Covering an Accident—Oral Argument in the California Supreme Court in the Delgado Case

  Can an intentional act still be an “accident?” That is the question the California Supreme Court struggled with on Wednesday (May 27th) during oral argument in Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange. The specific issue was whether…

• Recent San Francisco Superior Decision Tackles Obligation to Pay Defense Costs Outside of Limits

  In Yarway Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co., the parties submitted to a bench trial for resolution on the issue of whether an umbrella insurer was obligated to pay the insured’s defense costs in addition to…

• Homeowner Denied Coverage for Water Damage Caused by Third-party Negligence

  After sopping up the mess and shutting off your water main, most homeowners reach for the telephone to call their insurer after finding a water leak and the mess, damage, and mold left in its…

• “That Particular Part” Shouldn’t Be That Confusing

  Construction defect coverage litigation has been declining over the years. The building booms of the late 80s and 90s resulted in a boom of construction defect litigation too. Coinciding nicely with the introduction of the…