Justia Insurance Law Opinion SummariesArticles Posted in California Courts of Appeal
State of Cal. v. Encino Hospital Medical Center
This case arose out of a qui tam action against Prime Healthcare Services—Encino Hospital, LLC (Encino Hospital) and others to impose civil penalties for violation of the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA), Insurance Code section 1871 et seq. The State of California and relator (Plaintiffs) appealed from a judgment entered after a bench trial in which the court found insufficient evidence to support their allegations that Defendants engaged in insurance fraud by billing insurers for services performed in a detox center for which they had no appropriate license, and by employing a referral agency to steer patients to the center. The Second Appellate District affirmed the judgment. The court explained that, CDI alleged that Encino Hospital misrepresented to insurers that it was properly licensed to provide detox services when it was not. The trial court found no evidence suggesting that Defendants presented a false claim to any insurer. The court agreed, reasoning that no authority of which it is aware or to which it has been directed obligates Encino Hospital to hold any license other than its license as a general acute care hospital. Because Encino Hospital needed no separate license or approval, and no evidence showed it concealed any provider, the CDI’s cause of action for false claims failed for lack of a predicate. View "State of Cal. v. Encino Hospital Medical Center" on Justia Law
Shusha, Inc. v. Century-National Ins. Co.
Shusha, Inc., dba La Cava (La Cava) appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer filed by Century-National Insurance Company (Century-National) to La Cava’s first amended complaint. La Cava sued Century-National for breach of an insurance contract and related claims after Century-National denied coverage for La Cava’s lost business income as a result of its suspension of restaurant operations in March 2020 due to the COVID-191 pandemic and associated government shutdowns. On appeal, La Cava contended the trial court erred in concluding the alleged presence of the COVID-19 virus in its restaurant did not constitute “direct physical loss of or damage to” the restaurant necessary for coverage under the terms of the policy at issue. La Cava also argued Century-National acted in bad faith by summarily denying coverage without investigating La Cava’s claim. The Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for the trial court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and to enter a new order overruling the demurrer. The court held that La Cava’s allegations that contamination by the COVID-19 virus physically altered its restaurant premises were sufficient to withstand demurrer. The court explained that Century-National’s denial of coverage just three weeks after La Cava tendered its claim and in the earliest days of our understanding of the novel COVID-19 virus, cannot be deemed as a matter of law to have been made in good faith with reasonable grounds. View "Shusha, Inc. v. Century-National Ins. Co." on Justia Law
LaBarbera, et al. v. Security Nat. Ins. Co.
Plaintiff-appellant Chris LaBarbera hired Richard Knight dba Knight Construction (Knight) to remodel a house pursuant to a contract that provided Knight would defend and indemnify LaBarbera for all claims arising out of the work. Knight obtained a general liability insurance policy from defendant-respondent Security National Insurance Company (Security National) that covered damages Knight was obligated to pay due to bodily injury to a third party. As relevant here, the policy also covered Knight’s “liability for damages . . . [a]ssumed in a contract or agreement that is an ‘insured contract.’ ” Security National acknowledged the indemnity provision in Knight’s contract with LaBarbera was an “insured contract” within the meaning of the policy. The policy also provided, “If we defend an insured [i.e., Knight] against a suit and an indemnitee of the insured [i.e., LaBarbera] is also named as a party to the suit, we will defend that indemnitee” if certain conditions were met. During the remodeling work, a subcontractor suffered catastrophic injuries, and sued both LaBarbera and Knight. LaBarbera’s liability insurer (plaintiff-appellant Lloyd's of London Underwriters) defended him in that lawsuit, and Security National defended Knight. LaBarbera also tendered his defense to Knight and to Security National, but they either ignored or rejected the tender. After settling the underlying lawsuit for $465,000, LaBarbera and Underwriters sued Knight and Security National, seeking to recover the full $465,000 settlement amount and over $100,000 in expenses and attorney fees incurred defending LaBarbera in that lawsuit. Security National moved for summary judgment on the ground that all claims against it were barred because the undisputed facts established it did not have an obligation to defend or indemnify LaBarbera. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Security National. LaBarbera and Underwriters appealed, but the Court of Appeal affirmed, adopting different reasoning than the trial court. The Court agreed with Security National that the indemnitee defense clause in Knight’s general liability insurance policy did not bestow third party beneficiary rights on the indemnitee, LaBarbera, who benefitted only incidentally from the clause. Because LaBarbera was not a third party beneficiary under Knight’s policy, he was precluded from bringing a direct action against Security National. View "LaBarbera, et al. v. Security Nat. Ins. Co." on Justia Law
John’s Grill, Inc. v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.
John’s Grill in San Francisco was closed or operating at limited capacity during the pandemic. The restaurant was covered by Sentinel’s “Spectrum Business Owner’s Policy,” providing first-party property coverage, third-party liability coverage, and umbrella liability coverage. Sentinel denied the Grill’s claim for business interruption coverage. The trial court upheld the denial.The court of appeal reversed. A nearly uniform line of cases has held that temporary loss of use of property due to the COVID-19 pandemic does not constitute “direct physical loss of or damage to” property for purposes of first-party insurance coverage; nearly all of these cases involved standard form language that was not customized in any material way. Sentinel’s policy, however, has customized language. Other cases have analyzed the undefined term “direct physical loss of or damage to” property. Sentinel’s policy, by endorsement, affirmatively grants coverage for “loss or damage” caused by a virus; a special definition of “loss or damage” is broad enough to encompass pervasive infiltration of virus particulates onto the surfaces of covered property. The coverage is expressly limited to situations in which the virus is the “result of” a listed cause, none of which John’s Grill has alleged. The court rejected Sentinel’s proposed broad reading, citing the illusory coverage doctrine. Insuring agreements should be read broadly in favor of coverage, View "John's Grill, Inc. v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc." on Justia Law
Cover Right Roofing, Inc. v. State Compensation Ins. Fund
This appeal concerned a particular rate known as a “base rate,” which State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) used to calculate premiums for its insureds. California Insurance Code section 11664(e)(6)(A) stated: “[i]f the premium rate in the governing classification for the insured is to be increased 25 percent or greater and the insurer intends to renew the policy, the insurer shall provide a written notice of a renewal offer not less than 30 days prior to the policy renewal date.” In a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeal found State Fund was not obligated to provide notice to cross-complainant Cover Right Roofing (Cover Right) under this statute. The increase at issue was not due to any change in the premium rate of Cover Right’s governing classification. Rather, a third party changed the applicable governing classification criteria, which caused Cover Right to be assigned a new governing classification with a higher premium rate. The statute did not require notice in such circumstances. Thus, the Court found the trial court correctly granted State Fund’s motion for summary judgment and affirm the judgment. View "Cover Right Roofing, Inc. v. State Compensation Ins. Fund" on Justia Law
Randle v. Farmers New World Life Insurance Co.
Plaintiff sued Farmers New World Life Insurance Company (Defendant or Farmers) for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and punitive damages in connection with a policy insuring the life of her ex-husband. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant on those claims, concluding it was undisputed that the ex-husband remained the owner of the policy until he died, and that he had changed the beneficiaries on the policy, reducing his ex-wife’s interest from 100 percent to 25 percent. The Second Appellate District reversed, finding that the trial court failed to consider the terms of a divorce decree affecting ownership of the policy, and because Defendant’s agent repeatedly assured Plaintiff, up to and after the ex-husband’s death, that Plaintiff remained the sole beneficiary. Therefore, the court concluded disputed issues of material fact prevent summary judgment. View "Randle v. Farmers New World Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law
The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Lara
The Travelers Indemnity Company appeals the judgment entered after the superior court denied Travelers’ petition for a writ of administrative mandate challenging the Insurance Commissioner’s decision that certain agreements relating to workers’ compensation insurance policies issued to Adir International, LLC were unenforceable. Travelers contended that Adir’s lawsuit in the trial court, which included a request for a declaratory judgment the agreements were void, barred the Commissioner, under the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, from exercising jurisdiction while that lawsuit was pending. Travelers also appealed the post-judgment order granting Adir’s motion for attorney fees, contending attorney fees were not authorized. The Second Appellate Division affirmed the order and judgment denying Travelers’s petition. The court explained that the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine does not apply in this context to proceedings pending before the trial court and an administrative agency; and, in any event, it was reasonable and consistent with the primary jurisdiction doctrine for the trial court to defer to the Commissioner’s determination of the validity of the agreement at issue. In addition, because Adir’s administrative claim fell within the agreement’s attorney fee provision, the court affirmed the post-judgment order awarding Adir attorney fees. View "The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Lara" on Justia Law
Immigrant Rights Defense etc. v. Hudson Insurance Co.
Appellant is a self-described “watchdog association” that brings actions for injunctive relief against immigration consultants under section 22446.5, which provides a right of action against an immigration consultant to anyone who suffers damages by reason of the immigration consultant’s fraud, misrepresentation, or failure to provide services.In October 2017, Appellant brought over 90 actions against immigration consultants, two of whom had bonds issued by Appellee insurance company. After Appellant prevailed at trial against the consultants, it filed suit against Appellee to recover its attorney fees and costs against the Immigration Consultant Act bond. The trial court granted summary judgment in the insurance company's favor.On appeal, the Second Appellate District affirmed, explaining a surety issuing a statutory bond is liable only to the extent indicated in the code section under which the surety executes the bond and under the plain language of the relevant bond statutes, a non-aggrieved person who suffers no damages is not entitled to recovery from an Immigration Consultant Act bond. View "Immigrant Rights Defense etc. v. Hudson Insurance Co." on Justia Law
Amy’s Kitchen, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.
Amy’s employs 2,500 people to manufacture vegetarian meals. It purchased comprehensive property insurance from Fireman’s for a period ending in July 2020. The policy included coverage extensions for communicable diseases and for loss avoidance and mitigation: Fireman’s “will pay for direct physical loss or damage to Property" caused by or resulting from a "communicable disease event at a location.” The policy defines “communicable disease event” as one in which “a public health authority has ordered that a location be evacuated, decontaminated, or disinfected due to the outbreak of a communicable disease.” Amy’s incurred costs “to mitigate, contain, clean, disinfect, monitor, and test for the effects of” the coronavirus at insured locations, and to avoid or mitigate potential coronavirus-related losses, including temperature-screening equipment to test for COVID, protective shields to prevent transmission on assembly lines, masks and goggles, cleaning supplies, and “hero pay.” People with confirmed COVID-19 cases were on Amy’s premises. The complaint cited “various require[d safety measures] for all essential businesses.”Fireman’s denied Amy’s claim. The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. Under communicable disease extension, the need to clean or disinfect infected or potentially infected covered property constitutes “direct physical loss or damage” of the property; Amy’s has not pled a “communicable disease event” but should be given leave to amend to do so. View "Amy's Kitchen, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co." on Justia Law
Tarrar Enterprises, Inc. v. Associated Indemnity Corp.
Tarrar operated “a utility consultant business” in Contra Costa County. Associated issued Tarrar a comprehensive commercial liability and property insurance policy to “pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property,” and in particular to “pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain due to the necessary suspension of your operations during the period of restoration." The suspension must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property at the described premises. The loss or damage must be caused by or result from a Covered Cause of Loss.Based on the 2020 “shelter-in-place orders,” Tarrar made an unsuccessful claim for “business income loss.” The trial court dismissed Tarrar’s subsequent suit without leave to amend. While several California courts of appeal have resolved this issue against the insureds, one court held for the insured on the basis it had pled the element missing from earlier cases: it “adequately alleged direct physical loss or damage.” While Tarrar’s complaint did not allege the necessary “direct physical loss of or damage to property,” Tarrar should be permitted to amend. A plaintiff need not even request leave to amend an original complaint. Unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion. View "Tarrar Enterprises, Inc. v. Associated Indemnity Corp." on Justia Law