Insurance coverage is essential for professionals running any type of business. This protection is necessary to avoid costly losses from property damage and theft. But it’s also vital for litigation protection. With liability insurance, you have someone fighting for you if a client sues you or your company. Business Liability Insurance Overview Liability insurance for […]
Workers’ Compensation Insurance is designed to provide specific medical care and replace some lost income to employees who’ve been hurt on the job. But to get workers comp benefits, you need to follow the rules. In California, the Department of Industrial Relations oversees those rules and regulations. Learn more about workers’ comp and what you […]
In an action by an insured against an insurance company which denied a claim, plaintiff requested that the trial court give a standard jury instruction explaining that, when a loss is caused by a combination of covered and excluded risks, the loss is covered if the most important or predominant cause is a covered risk. (CACI No. 2306.) Defendant instead proposed a special jury instruction placing on plaintiff the burden of proving the collapse of the house was “caused only by one or more” of the perils listed in the policy, and that there was no coverage if the cause of the collapse involved any peril other than those listed.
While driving a GMC pickup truck owned by her father, a 17-year-old got into an accident. However, even though the daughter was the only one to drive the pickup, the father had excluded his daughter from insurance coverage in order to save money on premium payments. The daughter’s mother, who is the ex-wife of the father, had insurance on her own vehicles, but not the GMC.
One Fluor Corp. assigned its rights under liability policies to another Fluor Corp. when they underwent complex corporate restructuring. In a declaratory relief action, the liability insurer objected that its approval was not given pursuant to a consent to assignment provision in the policy. Fluor contended the provision was void under an 1872 statute which […]
The trial court approved transfer of structured settlement payments to a factoring company and ordered the payor insurance company to send the funds directly to the factor, and the insurance company appealed. The Structured Settlement Protection Act [SSPA; Insurance Code section 10134 et seq.] was passed to protect structured settlement payees from exploitation by factoring […]
The question tackled by the California Supreme Court here is that after an insurance company is compelled by a court order to provide independent counsel to defend its insured in a third-party action pursuant to San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358 [208 Cal.Rptr. 494], and the insurer […]
A famous inventor’s estate alleged the commercial use of the inventor’s name was not authorized after defendant manufactured and distributed several products using the name Buckyball, allegedly without permission or payment. Defendant tendered defense of the action to its insurance company. The insurance company agreed to defend under a reservation of rights and Cumis counsel […]
Five days after treatment at a breast center for a lump on her breast which proved to be cancerous as she continued her treatment, plaintiff applied for medical insurance. The questions on the application included whether she had “received any professional advice or treatment . . . from a licensed health practitioner” or “had any […]
When she was 17 years old, plaintiff was invited to a party by several members of a college baseball team. She claims that upon her arrival, she was given shots of hard liquor in quick succession, and later was assaulted by an unknown number of men as she lay unconscious in a room. Three women […]