Black Compean & Hall L.L.P.

Attorneys at Law

Published Decisions

Abraugh v. Gillespie (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 462

(Excusable neglect is not a basis for relief from late filing of claim against insolvent insurer under Insurance Code section 1021, and Code of Civil Procedure section 473 is not applicable to such a claim.)

 

Aloha Pacific, Inc. v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 297

(General liability policy which excludes coverage for "injury arising out of . . . infringement of trademark, service mark or trade name, other than titles or slogans . . . ." does not cover underlying judgment against insured for trademark infringement and false designation of origin brought under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. section 1114), and the California Insurance Guarantee Association is not bound by a prior judgment against the insolvent insurer for waiver of the right to contest coverage on that ground, nor is it estopped from denying coverage on that ground by having continued to pay for the defense of the insured after the carrier’s insolvency.)

 

Black Diamond Asphalt, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (California Ins. Guar. Ass'n) (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 166

(Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5 permits venue against the California Insurance Guarantee Association (“CIGA”) in the county where CIGA’s statutory obligation or liability arises.)

 

Berger, et al. v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 989

(A Northridge Earthquake claim, properly revived under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.9, is not time barred as against the California Insurance Guarantee Association.)

 

Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Argonaut Ins. Co. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 624

(Subrogation claim of workers’ compensation carrier for recovery of benefits paid to an injured employee, is not a “covered claim” for which the California Insurance Guarantee Association has any obligation under the provisions of Insurance Code sections 1063.1, et seq.; disagreeing with and criticizing Burrow v. Pike (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 384 [235 Cal.Rptr. 408].)

 

Carver v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1539

(Neither the provisions of the Insurance Code (section 1063.2, et seq.), nor public policy considerations, mandate that a workers’ compensation delay or refusal to pay benefits penalty imposed under Labor Code section 5814, due to the insolvency of the workers’ compensation carrier, is not a “covered claim” which must be paid by the California Insurance Guarantee Association.)

 

CD Investment Co. v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1410

(The California Insurance Guarantee Association’s statutory limit of $500,000 held to apply separately to each of five policies issued by insolvent insurers, and the "other insurance" limitation on CIGA’s obligations under Insurance Code section 1063.1, subd. (c)(9)(i) held to apply separately to each covered claim.)

 

Kenneth Clark v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Association (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 391 (pet. rev. denied).  

(In a direct action under Insurance Code §11580, a judgment creditor cannot recover the interest and cost portion of a judgment directly against the judgment debtor’s insurer who defended the underlying suit.  The court held that since the costs and interest portion of the judgment is payable under the Supplementary Payments provision of the policy, which is part of the insurer’s defense duty, the third party judgment creditor is, at most, merely an incidental beneficiary with no direct rights under that portion of the policy.  The court held that this rule applies irrespective of whether or not the insurer defended the judgment debtor in the underlying action, and that this rule may be asserted by CIGA where the insurer has become insolvent.)

County of Orange v. FST Sand & Gravel, Inc. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 353

(Provisions of Insurance Code 1063.1, subd. (c)(4), which state that “covered claims” shall not include obligations to any state or federal government, do not bar local government bodies from making claims against the California Insurance Guarantee Association.)

 

 

HCM Healthcare, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2010) 187 Cal. App. 4th 1317

 

(California Insurance Guarantee Assoication was not required to pay claims where the claims were not presented on or before “the last date fixed for the filing of claims in the domiciliary liquidating proceedings,” (Insurance Code §1063.1(c)(1)(C)), even if the claim was not known prior to the “last date,” or even where the liquidator has accepted the late claim or treated it as if it were timely.)

 

Isaacson v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 775

(California Insurance Guarantee Association held immune from claims for violation of the Unfair Claims Practices Act (Insurance Code section 790 et seq.), claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and claims for common law breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (bad faith).)

 

Mercury Ins. Co. v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 41

(Plaintiff insurer had no right of subrogation against defendant rental car company and defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association, where defendant driver’s insurer was insolvent, because plaintiff had no obligation to make payment to its insured (passenger) on its uninsured motorist coverage where vehicle was not uninsured, but was instead underinsured, and because plaintiff’s insured failed to exhaust, or file proof of exhaustion, of the rental car company's financial responsibility limits.)

 

Mirpad v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1058

(General liability insurance policy coverage for claims arising out of the wrongful eviction from a room, dwelling, or premises occupied by a “person” does not apply to claims arising from eviction of a corporation, where the word "person" is consistently used throughout the policy to refer only to natural persons, and where other types of legal entities, such as corporations, are consistently characterized in the policy as "organizations.")

 

N. Orange Co. Community College Dist. v. CM School Supplies Co. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 362

(Community College is not synonymous with the “state” for purposes of interpreting Insurance Code 1063.1, subd. (c)(4), which provides that “covered claims” for which the California Insurance Guarantee Association is obligated, shall not include obligations to any state or federal government.)

 

Ohrbach’s, Inc. v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1089

(Claims by California residents against a nonresident insured were covered claims under the former provisions of Insurance Code section 1063.1, subd. (c)(1)(vii), and such third-party claims were equally payable on behalf of both resident and nonresident insureds.)

 

Pruyn v. Agricultural Ins. Co. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 500

(Where a liability insurer wrongfully denies coverage or refuses to defend, the insured is free to negotiate the best possible settlement, including a stipulated judgment accompanied by a covenant not to execute, and such a settlement raises a rebuttable evidentiary presumption in favor of the insured as to the existence and amount of the insured's liability.)

 

R.J. Reynolds Co. v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 595

(California Insurance Guarantee Association not obligated under the provisions of Insurance Code section 1063.1, et seq., to pay or reimburse additional insured for “uninsured” adjusted retrospective premium negotiated and paid to insured’s direct insurer for settlement of a claim, after the additional insured carrier became insolvent and the direct carrier took over handling of the claim.)

 

Roth v. L.A. Door Co. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1249

(A permissively self insured employer for purposes of providing workers' compensation benefits, is deemed to be an insurer providing “other insurance” within the meaning of Insurance Code section 1063.1, subd. (c)(9), and thus, employer’s claim for reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits paid is not a “covered claim” for which the California Insurance Guarantee Association is responsible.)

 

Stonelight Tile, Inc. v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 19

(In a continuous injury trigger case involving a judgment obtained against an insured recycling company whose operations generated a large amount of dust that blew into the claimants' factory and damaged the claimants’ products, where the claimants entered into settlements with three solvent insurers which neither exhausted each solvent insurer’s policy limits nor fully satisfied the underlying judgment, and where a fourth insurer had become insolvent, claimants could not recover against the California Insurance Guarantee Association because the unexhausted portion of the solvent insurers’ policies represented “other insurance” within the meaning of Insurance Code section 1063.1, subd. (c)(9), and because claimants' additional trespass and nuisance claims were not covered under the personal injury liability coverage of the insolvent carrier’s policy inasmuch as liability for wrongful eviction or entry does not cover pollution damage to real property.)

 

Stonewall Insurance Co. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1810

(Underlying judgment obtained by homeowner against City due to City’s continuous and repeated course of conduct over a ten year period, i.e., improper design and maintenance of a City storm drain adjoining homeowner property which ultimately rendered property worthless, was deemed to constitute a continuing injury so that all liability insurers of the City whose policies were in force during any portion of that period were held to cover the loss, and the one year statute of limitation under California Government Code section 911.2 did not begin to run until the damages from the continuing injury had stabilized.)

 

Travelers Cas. and Surety Co. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 99

(Policy endorsement excluding coverage for damage arising out of insured’s predecessor's products bars coverage for first underlying action, where only the predecessor's products were implicated by third-party complaint, but not for second underlying action where insured successor corporation allegedly also supplied some of the defective products.)

 

Woodliff v. Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1690

(A judgment awarded against insurer prior to insolvency in the amount of attorney fees insured incurred in defending against two underlying lawsuits, after insurer had declined to defend, does not constitute a “loss adjustment expense” within the meaning of Insurance Code section 1063.2(h) for which the California Insurance Guarantee Association has no obligation.)

 

Copyright © 2017 blackcompeanhalleli.com law web design