Insurance Litigation & Regulatory Law Blog : California Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Barger & Wolen Law Firm : CA Insurance & Bad Faith Litigation

In November 2004, the voters of California passed Proposition 64, which was intended to rein in certain abuses in and bring some clarity to the Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et. seq. (“the UCL”). Five years later, and after a number of decisions issued by the California Supreme Court construing the changes made by Prop 64, that clarity is still elusive.

Take, for example, the Court’s May 18, 2009 decision In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), which concluded that the new standing requirements for a UCL claim created by Prop 64 only require the named plaintiff/class representative to establish standing and not absent class members. In the months since the issuance of Tobacco II, a number of decisions have considered whether the Court’s conclusion as to “standing” applies to a trial court’s determination when it comes to considering the issue of “commonality” (i.e., whether common issues predominate over individual issues) for purposes of a class certification motion. Our firm’s blogs have reported on two intermediate appellate cases that found “Tobacco II to be irrelevant because the issue of ‘standing’ simply is not the same thing as the issue of ‘commonality.’”  See Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., 178 Cal. App. 4th 966 (2009); Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Insurance Co., 178 Cal. App. 4th 830 (2009). 

Cohen is now the subject of a Petition for Review pending before the Supreme Court, along with several requests for depublication of the intermediate court’s opinion. The court is expected to decide whether the case is to be accepted for review or depublished by March 1, 2010.

But Cohen is just one case on the Supreme Court’s plate. The following are cases now actual pending before the Supreme Court that address issues relating to the UCL, along with the date the Court accepted review and the issue(s) presented on the Court’s website:

Loeffler v. Target Corporation, Case No. S173972 (June 19, 2009) 

Does article XIII, section 32 of the California Constitution or Revenue and Taxation Code section 6932 bar a consumer from filing a lawsuit against a retailer under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq.) or the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, section 1750 et seq.) alleging that the retailer charged sales tax on transactions that were not taxable?  [The Court also issued a “grant and hold” on November 19, 2009 in Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, Case No. S173972, pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in Loeffler v. Target Corp.]

Clark v. Superior Court (National Western Life Insurance Co.), Case No. S174229 (September 9, 2009)

Is Civil Code section 3345, which permits an enhanced award of up to three times the amount of a fine, civil penalty, or “any other remedy the purpose or effect of which is to punish or deter” in actions brought by or on behalf of senior citizens or disabled persons seeking to “redress unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition,” applicable in an action brought by senior citizens seeking restitution under the Unfair Competition Law?

Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, Case No. S171845 (June 10, 2009)

Does a plaintiff's allegation that he purchased a product in reliance on the product label's misrepresentation about a characteristic of the product satisfy the requirement for standing under the Unfair Competition Law that the plaintiff allege a loss of money or property, or is such a plaintiff unable to allege the required loss of money or property because he obtained the benefit of his bargain by receiving the product in exchange for the payment?

Pineda v. Bank of America, Case No. S170758 (April 22, 2009)

Can penalties under Labor Code section 203 (late payment of final wages) be recovered as restitution in an Unfair Competition Law action?

Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., Case No. S170577 (April 22, 2009)

Request that the Supreme Court deicide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  (Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008) (now withdrawn))  The questions presented are: (1) Does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week? (2) Does the UCL apply to the overtime work described in question one? (3) Does the UCL apply to overtime work performed outside of California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. section 207 et seq.)?

Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. S166435 (November 19, 2008)

This case presents the following issues: (1) When plaintiffs pay overcharges on goods or services as a result of the anticompetitive conduct of defendant sellers but recover the overcharges through increased prices at which the goods or services are sold to end users, may defendants assert a “pass-on” defense and argue that plaintiffs were not injured because they did not suffer financial loss as a result of the anticompetitive conduct? (2) Is restitution available under the Unfair Competition Law to plaintiffs who recovered from third persons the overcharges paid to defendants? (3) When plaintiffs recover from third persons the overcharges paid to defendants, have they suffered actual injury and lost money or property for purposes of establishing standing under the Unfair Competition Law, as amended by Proposition 64?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

California Insurance Code of Regulations, specifically 10 CCR § 2695.4, requires that an insurer notify its insureds of any contractual time limitation after the insured or beneficiary submits his or her claim. In the California Court of Appeal’s January 21, 2010 decision in Superior Dispatch v. Insurance Corporation of New York, the court found the failure to provide the notice required by § 2695.4 results in the insurer’s inability to rely on the contractual limitation provision in precluding litigation. 

In legal parlance, the appellate court found that the insurer was “equitably estopped” from benefiting from the contractual limitation provision. Being “estopped” from doing something is the same as being barred or blocked from doing something. When someone or an entity is equitably estopped from doing something, they are being barred or blocked from doing something based upon traditional notions of fairness or justice. 

Based on prior precedents, the court held that enforcing compliance with § 2695.4 in a way to negate the contractual limitation provision (despite how conspicuous the term was in the policy) was needed to “remedy the trap for the unwary.” This is especially troubling for insurers who are not intending to “trap” anyone, but expect that the policy will be enforced as a contract between the insurer and the insured (i.e., an insurer who expects the terms of policies that were agreed to by both parties to be enforced). Thus a warning to insurers is necessary: Just because the insured agrees to a term by purchasing the policy and has the opportunity to read the entire policy, the insurer cannot expect that all the terms will be enforced by California courts. In this case, the insurer must go beyond what is required in the policy and provide specific notice of the provision in the policy, despite the insured’s ability to read it for himself. The court went further in holding that the insurer needs to still provide notice of the contractual limitation even when the insurer knows that the insured is represented by counsel. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company (issued January 19, 2010), the California Court of Appeal found that an insurer properly rescinded an insured’s individual health insurance policy based on medical history misrepresentations contained in the application submitted to the insurer. The court also concluded that the insurer had no statutory duty to physically attach the application to the policy or to conduct further inquiries beyond the application during the underwriting process to ascertain the truthfulness of the insured’s representations before it issued the policy. The Nieto decision is addressed in Barger & Wolen’s Life, Health and Disability Insurance Law blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied certification to a purported class of purchasers of deferred annuities. In a decision issued earlier today by United States District Judge Janis Sammartino in In re National Western Life Insurance Deferred Annuities Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-1018-JLS (JSP), the court denied certification as to a nationwide class alleging RICO violations and a California state class alleging multiple statutory violations, including claims under the Unfair Competition Law (California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.).

Plaintiffs claimed that National Western “orchestrated a nationwide scheme to target senior citizens and lure them into purchasing its high cost and illiquid deferred annuities,” basing their claim on three alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions – the failure to disclose the high commissions paid to agents, the presence of an illusory bonus on premiums paid, and the use of an increasing asset fee, each of which impacted the interest credited on the annuities. Focusing solely on the commonality and typicality requirements to establish a viable class, the court found that such requirements were lacking. For example, the court emphasized that none of the class representatives possessed an annuity with an asset fee that was increased. Moreover, the court found plaintiffs had not met their burden in demonstrating that all of National Western’s more than twenty annuity products contained the alleged same misrepresentations and omitted the same information.  While the court did observe that National Western used standardized forms, they were not identical, and the evidence presented by plaintiffs failed to support their contention that those materials contained the same alleged misrepresentations and omissions.

The court denied the motion for class certification without prejudice and also explained that its ruling did not address any of the numerous other arguments advanced by the parties.

Larry Golub and Kent Keller of Barger & Wolen were co-counsel for National Western Life Insurance Company.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Superior Court, Costco had retained a law firm to provide it with legal advice regarding whether certain Costco warehouse managers in California were exempt from California’s wage and overtime laws. As part of the analysis, Costco’s attorney interviewed two warehouse managers. Afterward, the attorney generated an opinion letter.

Several years later, plaintiffs filed an action claiming that Costco had misclassified some of its managers as exempt employees, and thus did not pay them overtime to which they were otherwise entitled. In the course of discovery, plaintiffs sought to obtain a copy of the attorney’s opinion letter. Costco resisted producing the letter on the basis that it was a privileged attorney-client communication. The plaintiffs disagreed, contending that the letter was not privileged because it contained non-privileged factual information regarding the managers’ job duties that had been obtained during the course of the attorney’s interview of the managers.

The trial court ordered a discovery referee to review the opinion letter in camera to determine whether the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine should prevent its disclosure.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 30, 2009, the California Supreme Court held in Roby v. McKesson Corporation, et al. that a punitive damage to compensatory damage ratio of one-to-one is the U.S. Constitutional maximum permissible under the Due Process Clause where the compensatory damage award is substantial.

Plaintiff Charlene Roby brought wrongful discharge and harassment claims against her former employer, McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"). The jury awarded her $3,511,000 in compensatory damages and $15 million in punitive damages. After finding that the appropriate compensatory award was approximately $1,900,000, the Supreme Court turned to whether the punitive damage award which had already been reduced to $2 million by the Court of Appeal was excessive.

The Court first analyzed the reprehensibility of McKesson's conduct through the following factors:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the recently issued decision Princess Cruise Lines, LTD v. Superior Court, plaintiffs sued Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. (“Princess”) over charges added to the price of shore excursions taken during a cruise. They alleged causes of action for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Princess moved for summary judgment and summary adjudication. The trial court granted summary adjudication on the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims because plaintiffs could not show they relied on Princess’ alleged misrepresentations. It denied summary judgment because it concluded that on the UCL, FAL and CLRA causes of action, plaintiffs did not have to show that they relied on Princess’ alleged misrepresentations.

Princess took a writ of mandate to the Court of Appeal. Citing to the recent California Supreme Court decision in In Re Tobacco II Cases, the Court of Appeal confirmed that

a class representative proceeding on a claim of misrepresentation as the basis of his or her UCL action must demonstrate actual reliance on the allegedly deceptive or misleading statements, in accordance with well-settled principles regarding the element of reliance in ordinary fraud actions.

Relying further on language from Tobacco II, the Court of Appeal specified that reliance must be proven only in situations where a UCL action is based on a fraud theory involving false advertising and misrepresentations to consumers. It further held that the Tobacco II’s analysis of the phrase “as a result” in the UCL was equally applicable to identical language in the CLRA statute.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A common perception in class action litigation is that, where damages are individualized, this will not usually mean that a class action cannot be certified. However, in certain cases, where individualized questions of damages exist – and indeed predominate over one or more common issues – a trial court may deny class certification and that denial should be upheld on appeal. The recent decision in Evans v. Lasco Bathware, Inc. presents such a case.

In Evans, the plaintiff brought suit against Lasco claiming that the shower pans that had been installed in thousands of residential showers were defectively designed, resulting in water leakage and consequential damages to adjacent components of the homes’ shower system. The plaintiff sought to certify a class alleging claims for strict products liability and negligence, and asserted that its expert had concluded that the shower pan design was defective (a common issue) and that damage could be resolved by calculating some formula to estimate the average cost to replace the shower pan with a new generation of shower pan and thereby avoid the need for class members to submit the individualized damage estimates.

The trial court denied class certification, holding that the need for individualized proof of the amount of damages for removing and replacing the shower pans predominated over the common questions. The Court of Appeal affirmed, explaining that while

a trial court has discretion to permit a class action to proceed where the damages recoverable by the class must necessarily be based on estimations, the trial court equally has discretion to deny certification when it concludes the fact and extent of each member’s injury requires individualized inquiries that defeat predominance.

On this basis, it asserted that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to certify the class as to common issues of liability and causation since those issues required individualized proof from each class member.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A California Court of Appeal decision published on October 28, 2009, analyzes whether UCL “standing” rules announced by the California Supreme Court in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), carry over when a trial court considers the requisite elements to certify a class action. The answer, at least from the Eighth Appellate District, is that they do not. 

In Cohen v. DIRECTV, Inc., the plaintiff sued the satellite television company under both the Unfair Competition Law or “UCL” (Business & Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act or “CLRA” (Civil Code sections 1750 et seq.), claiming that the company falsely advertised the quality of the High Definition (“HD”) resolution that it was transmitting to its customers. Cohen sought to certify a nationwide class. In opposition to a motion for class certification, DIRECTV presented a number of declarations from its customers that explained that their individual decisions to purchase the HD upgraded system were not based on seeing any advertising or promotional materials from the company, but rather on word of mouth, lower prices, or just because they bought an HDTV. On those facts, the trial court denied certification, finding that common legal and factual issues did not predominate.

On appeal, the court first found that no common legal issues predominated, agreeing with the trial court that the subscribers’ legal rights would vary from state to state and that subscribers outside of California may not be protected by the UCL or the CLRA. It also rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to redefine the class to include only California residents, reasoning that, even with a California-only class, plaintiff still could not show that common factual issues would predominate over individual factual issues.

As for whether common issues predominated, the court concluded that there were myriad reasons why subscribers had purchased the HD upgrade that were far removed from the alleged misleading advertisements as to resolution of the HD transmission. More particularly, the court found commonality lacking since actual reliance would need to be shown for an award of damages under the CLRA and for restitution/injunctive relief under the UCL. As for the decision in Tobacco II, the court explained that the Supreme Court in that case had been concerned with the issue of standing under the UCL and that, in the context of standing, only the class representative needed to satisfy the requirement and that there was no need for the class members to show actual reliance.

However, at the time of considering class certification, the Cohen court found “Tobacco II to be irrelevant because the issue of ‘standing’ simply is not the same thing as the issue of ‘commonality.’” Rather, at the time of considering class certification, the trial court was concerned that the UCL and CLRA claims alleged by plaintiff and the other class members “would involve factual questions associated with their reliance on DIRECTV’s alleged false representation,” which was a proper criterion to consider for commonality – “even after Tobacco II.”

Cohen is the second case published last week that affirmed the denial of class certification of a UCL claim and addressed the impact, or, more correctly, the lack of impact, of the decision in Tobacco II. The other decision is Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha et al., published October 26, 2009, a decision in which Barger & Wolen represented the defendant, and is discussed in the Life, Health and Disability Insurance Law blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent ruling by the California Court of Appeal in a UCL action will likely lead to a showdown in the California Supreme Court over the reach of Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos., 46 Cal. 3d 287 (1988), the ruling that barred private actions seeking to enforce California’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, namely, Insurance Code Section 790.03, et seq. (“Section 790.03”). 

For years plaintiffs’ lawyers and insurers have grappled over the question of whether causes of action for violation of California’s “Unfair Competition Law” (Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., or “UCL”) may allege conduct that violates Section 790.03. Insurers have generally prevailed in demonstrating that to allow a UCL suit to include thinly-disguised Section 790.03 violations would be an impermissible circumvention or end run around Moradi-Shalal. The California Court of Appeal supported the insurers’ position on this issue in Textron Financial Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 118 Cal. App. 4th 1061 (2004).

Now, the Fourth Appellate District, in Zhang v. Superior Court (October 29, 2009), has rejected Textron, and held that because the UCL allows a plaintiff to allege unfair, unlawful, and misleading conduct against businesses generally (including insurers), the fact a plaintiff asserts what appear to be violations of Section 790.03 is not necessarily an end run around Moradi-Shalal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recent Barger & Wolen Victory Answers Who Decides What to Do After Hall Street

by Evan L. Smoak and Alison J. Shilling

In March 2008, the United States Supreme Court held that parties may not contractually expand the scope of judicial review to include “errors of law.” Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008). Therefore, the Supreme Court declined to enforce an arbitration clause provision that allowed judicial review of an arbitrator’s errors of law. 

In the wake of Hall Street, parties have disputed whether an “error of law” provision in an arbitration clause invalidates the entire arbitration agreement, and whether such a dispute should be decided by the courts or by arbitrators.

A Barger & Wolen victory this month in a New York appellate court has answered who should decide the issue. See Life Receivables Trust v. Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd’s, __, N.Y.S.2d. __, No. 602934/08, 2009 WL 3255942 (1st Dep’t Oct. 13, 2009). That question is for the arbitrators where the arbitration clause incorporates AAA or similar rules.

In Life Receivables, the arbitration clause contained an “errors of law” provision. The appellants asked the court to enjoin pending arbitrations, arguing that Hall Street invalidated the arbitration clause. The motion court refused to enjoin the arbitrations, and the appellate court affirmed. The arbitration clause at issue provided for arbitration of all disputes and incorporated the AAA rules by reference. Noting that the AAA rules authorize arbitrators to determine the “existence, scope or validity” of an arbitration agreement, the appellate court held that the arbitrators would determine what to do in light of Hall Street, even though that question is usually for the court:

Although the question of arbitrability is generally an issue for judicial determination, when the parties’ agreement specifically incorporates by reference the AAA rules, which provide that the tribunal shall have the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement, and employs language referring all disputes to arbitration, courts will leave the question of arbitrability to the arbitrators. Id. (internal citations omitted).

As a result, the appellate court ordered that the disputes return to arbitration, as Barger & Wolen’s client had argued.

For additional information about this decision, or the Hall Street arguments considered by the court, please contact Steven Anderson (sanderson@bargerwolen.com) or Evan Smoak (esmoak@bargerwolen.com) in Barger & Wolen’s New York office (212-557-2800).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent decision issued by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, analyzed under what circumstances a liability insurer’s declaratory relief action seeking to withdraw from the duty to defend an underlying lawsuit may be stayed – or allowed to proceed. 

In Great American Insurance Company v. Superior Court (Angeles Chemical Company, Inc.), issued October 9, 2009, the appellate court remanded the case back down to the trial court to re-evaluate whether the trial court had properly stayed the insurer’s declaratory relief action. In so doing, and in a case where there was no overlapping factual issues between the underlying action and the declaratory relief coverage action, the trial court was directed to exercise its discretion and balance the potential prejudice to both the insured and the insurer.

The underlying case involved a complex environmental claim against a number of insureds covered under a general liability policy issued by Great American. After settling a portion of the case and claiming that its $500,000 policy limits were exhausted, Great American sought to extricate itself from any further obligation to defend the insureds by bringing a declaratory relief action. The insureds moved to stay the declaratory relief action, claiming that there were factual issues that overlapped between the underlying action and the declaratory relief coverage action, such that trying the declaratory relief action would prejudice the insured’s rights in the underlying action. The trial court found the potential for some overlap and therefore issued a stay.

Great American filed a writ petition and the appellate court requested briefing on the propriety of the stay order. In analyzing three claims of “overlapping factual issues” asserted by the insureds, the appellate court found that two of those issues would not overlap between the underlying and declaratory relief actions, and that the third issue, involving some as-of-yet-unfiled bad faith claim, was premature, and thus the trial court had erred in staying the coverage action due to “overlapping factual issues.”

That did not end the dispute, however, as the appellate court then explained that even if “there is no such factual overlap and the declaratory relief action can be resolved on legal issues or factual issues unrelated to the issues in the underlying action, the question as to whether to stay the declaratory relief action is a matter entrusted to the trial court’s discretion,” and in “exercising such discretion, however, the trial court should consider the possibility of prejudice to both parties.” (Emphasis by court.) The court then set forth the three possible types of potential prejudice that could exist for an insured in having to fight a “two-front” war and the possible prejudice to an insurer in having to continue to pay defense costs indefinitely in a case where it no longer has any defense obligation.

Since the trial court had only issued its stay order on the factual overlap issue and not made any determination as to the balancing of possible prejudice to the insured and insurer, the appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to exercise its discretion and perform the requisite balancing of prejudices. The appellate court also provided the trial court with its observations as to certain undisputed facts that may assist the trial court in making its determination.

This case presents an excellent primer on the subject of when an insurer’s declaratory relief action is to be stayed pending the resolution of an underlying liability lawsuit and when an insurer is to be allowed to attempt to show when its declaratory relief claim may proceed to determine if any duty to defend still exists.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 9, 2009, a unanimous panel of the California Supreme Court accepted review of the Court of Appeal decision in Clark v. Superior Court (National Western Life Insurance Company). In so doing, the Supreme Court will address an issue of first impression under California law – whether a statute that provides for trebling of penalties and fines can be applied to private actions under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) that allows only restitution as the sole monetary remedy.

In the Court of Appeal decision issued May 21, 2009, the appellate panel found that Civil Code section 3345, which permits trebling of penalties and fines in cases involving seniors, could be applied to restitution awards under the UCL. No case had ever so held this trebling remedy to apply to private UCL actions since the enactment of section 3345 in 1988, and no case had ever permitted any sort of damages, be they compensatory, treble or punitive, under the UCL. On June 29, 2009, National Western Life Insurance Company filed its Petition for Review with the Supreme Court, raising a number of arguments as to why the Court of Appeal decision was in error and that the case raised an important question of law. Several parties submitted amicus curiae letters in support of the Petition.

With the granting of review, the Court of Appeal decision is now automatically de-published and no longer citable as precedent. Briefing before the Supreme Court will occur over the next several months, but a decision from the Supreme Court is not expected until at least the end of 2010.

Kent Keller and Larry Golub of Barger & Wolen are counsel for National Western Life Insurance Company and filed the Petition for Review.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On August 28, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that found the Hawaii District Court had erred in denying class certification in a case involving the sale of annuities to senior citizens. While expressing no opinion as to the merits of the case, the Court of Appeals concluded that the class in Yokoyama v. Midland National Life Insurance Company should have been certified.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiffs in Yokoyama limited their claim to one that specifically targeted the misrepresentations made by Midland National in its brochures that promoted the annuities as appropriate for seniors. (No actual brochure language is quoted in the case.) Significantly, the claim was alleged solely under the Hawaii Deceptive Practices Act (“DPA”), which appears to be similar to a claim under the Unfair Competition Law in California. 

The District Court’s opinion issued in 2007 found that each plaintiff would have to show subjective, individualized reliance on deceptive practices related to each plaintiff’s purchase of an annuity, and thus class certification was denied. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court had erred in denying class certification, based on the fact that “this action has been narrowly tailored to rely only on Hawaii law,” that the DPA only requires an objective test to determine reliance, and that the plaintiffs were not basing their claim on the individual solicitations by agents.

The Ninth Circuit concluded: “Accordingly, there is no reason to look at the circumstances of each individual purchase in this case, because the allegations of the complaint are narrowly focused on allegedly deceptive provisions of Midland’s own marketing brochures, and the fact-finder need only determine whether those brochures were capable of misleading a reasonable consumer.” 

In addition, the Ninth Circuit opinion also rejected Midland National’s argument (and the District Court’s holding) that the potential existence of individualized damage assessments made the action unsuitable for class treatment. The Court of Appeals explained that “[in] this circuit, however, damage calculations alone cannot defeat certification.”

Much of the Yokohama decision is focused on the standard of review for a district court’s ruling as to certification, with the Ninth Circuit announcing that the standard of review is de novo, rather than the accepted abuse of discretion standard typically used in reviewing class certification rulings on appeal, at least in situations where the underlying issue is purely one of law.  On this point, however, there was a split among the three-judge panel. 

The third judge on the panel forcefully rejected this de novo standard and observed that it is “an assault on Ninth Circuit precedent.” The Judge concluded his separate opinion by advising that it “is an en banc panel who should make this determination to depart from longstanding Circuit precedent, not two judges who would make the standard of review less deferential.” The third Judge nevertheless concurred in the Court’s ultimate conclusion that the denial of class certification was to be reversed even under the de novo standard. Whether Midland National will seek en banc review in the case is presently unknown.

Ultimately, the Yokoyama opinion sanctions that, if plaintiff’s counsel in a case can craft the claims asserted against the defendant in a narrow manner so as to avoid individual variance among the class members, then even in a situation where class certification would seem not to be appropriate due to the inherent individualized issues, certification may nevertheless be permitted on that narrowed claim.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The pen is mightier than the sword, and a variation on that theme – the declaration is mightier than conclusory class action allegations – has just been embraced by the Fourth District California Court of Appeal in the case of Ali v. USA Cab Ltd. (August 24, 2009).

In Ali a putative class of drivers who leased taxis from USA Cab claimed the company wrongfully classified the drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.  As a result, plaintiffs claimed, USA Cab improperly withheld workers’ compensation insurance, minimum wages and meal/rest breaks.  Although the complaint asserted the drivers assumed no risk and provided no tools, USA Cab attacked plaintiffs’ motion for class certification by filing declarations showing the drivers were not subject to USA Cab’s control, that the drivers provided their own maps, cell phones, computers and GPS systems, and that they paid for their own advertising and business cards. 

The use of dozens of drivers’ declarations proved to be a powerful weapon against plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  The trial court found common issues did not predominate, as putative class members presented a vast variety of factual circumstances not susceptible to class resolution.  Because proof of liability as to a sampling of class members would not establish proof of liability as to the class, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the certification motion.

The Court of Appeal also held the suit failed the superiority test, concluding plaintiffs failed to demonstrate class treatment would be superior to individual actions, because the putative class action would be “extremely difficult to manage.”  The opinion found that even if judgment were to be rendered for the class, the need to litigate each member’s right to recover would eliminate any efficiencies resulting from the class mechanism.

The lesson of the Ali case is clear:  The notion that common issues predominate is easy to assert, but if declarations can disprove commonality, they can be a devastating weapon in defeating a putative class action. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an opinion issued yesterday, Meza v. H. Muehlstein & Co., the Second District Court of Appeal confirmed that defense counsel who represent different defendants in a civil case can share information, strategy, and protected information with one another, without the risk of waiving attorney-client privilege, so long as they are all working toward a common interest.

The "Common Interest Doctrine" question came before the Second District due to an interesting, albeit unusual, factual/procedural situation.  A single plaintiff named 17 different defendants in one action for exposure to dangerous chemicals.  One of those defendants was Jack's Plastics, who was represented by an attorney named Brett Drouet.  The trial court in that action entered judgment in defendants' favor.  The plaintiff appealed.  While the case was on appeal, Mr. Drouet left his firm that was representing Jack's Plastics and joined the firm that was representing the plaintiff in the underlying action.  In other words, one of the defendant's attorneys was now employed by the plaintiff's attorney, while the appeal was still pending.  Nothing would have likely resulted if the Court of Appeal had upheld the judgment in favor of the defendants in the underlying case.   However, the Court of Appeal vacated the judgment in favor of the defendants and the case was back in front of the trial court.  Upon learning that one of the former defense attorneys was now working at the firm representing the plaintiff, one of the defendants filed a motion to disqualify the plaintiff's firm from the case (i.e., if granted, the plaintiff would need to get new counsel).  The motion was based upon the theory that the information disclosed to the former defense counsel needed to be protected from disclosure to plaintiff's counsel.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a lengthy decision issued by the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, and one that examined and summarized a whole host of liability insurance issues (including an insurer’s duty to defend, what constitutes “unreasonable” conduct for “bad faith” purposes, how changes in the law impact the issue of bad faith, and the ability of an insurer to recoup defense costs under a reservation of rights), the court reversed an $11 million judgment against an insurer and then ruled in favor of the insurer.

Griffin Dewatering Corp. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York, issued July 31, 2009, involved a groundwater pumping and control company that purchased a CGL policy from Northern Insurance Company. In exchange for renewing that coverage, Northern orally promised during a meeting in 1997 that it would not rely on the policy’s total pollution exclusion with respect to “future” claims involving sewage. There had been a prior claim involving a faulty sewer bypass constructed by the insured that the insurer had denied. When there was a future claim that related to the prior claim, the insurer denied coverage again, and one of the questions was whether this future claim was covered by the oral promise. (The insurer shortly thereafter accepted coverage for the claim, but that did not short circuit the insured’s bad faith lawsuit.)

The insured prevailed at trial against the insurer based on the oral promise, and it obtained a judgment of $11 million, mostly in bad faith tort damages. The insurer appealed and prevailed.  The Court of Appeal based its decision in large part on the failure of insured to have actually pled in its complaint a cause of action based on the oral promise through which it had obtained the judgment.  Instead, the complaint was predicated on the straightforward coverage question as to whether the insurer had misconstrued the language of the exclusion provision so as to unreasonably deny coverage.  Moreover, the complaint had never been amended to include any “stand alone” cause of action based on the oral promise, and counsel for the insured conceded that it was only going to use the promise as a “concession” that the insurer’s “coverage position had been unreasonable all along.”

The Court of Appeal’s decision, while very detailed, makes for interesting reading as it effectively distills current California law as to a number of bad faith and duty to defend topics.   Further, the decision is interspersed with humor and a search for the real story, conceding in its opening words, “At first we did not know what to make of this case.”  By the end of the decision, the court had found the answer.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a long-anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court issued its August 3, 2009 decision in Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California, finding that the contention (by the injured party) that the insured acted in self-defense when sued for assault and battery did not constitute an “accident” within the meaning of a liability policy and thus the insurer had no duty to defend the action. The decision is also noteworthy as it distinguished a number of prior cases, including Supreme Court cases, that had touched on similar issues.

Delgado arose out of altercation where the insured under a homeowner’s policy issued by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California “hit and kicked 17-year old Jonathan Delgado.” Delgado sued the insured, setting forth two causes of action, one for intentional tort and one alleging that the insured “‘negligently and unreasonably believed’ he was engaging in self-defense ‘and unreasonably acted in self-defense . . . .’” 

The insured tendered the suit to his insurer, which denied coverage, including any duty to defend, on the basis that the claim did not constitute an “occurrence” under the policy, which term was defined as “an accident.” Delgado then dismissed the intentional tort claim and settled the remaining “negligent belief in self-defense” claim with the insured, who stipulated to judgment and assigned his rights to Delgado. Delgado then sued the insurer as a judgment creditor and for bad faith. While the trial court dismissed the action on demurrer, the Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the allegations potentially were an “accident” under the policy.

On review the Supreme Court first addressed the issue as to what constitutes “an accident” under a liability policy, which substantial case law had found to be “an unexpected, unforeseen, or undersigned happening or consequence from either a known or unknown case.” The Court rejected Delgado’s reliance on prior decisions of the Court that Delgado had contended held that the term “accident” was to be determined from the perspective of the injured party. The Court observed that, under such reasoning, plainly intentional acts like child molestation, arson and premeditated murder, if contended to be based on an unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense, could be considered an “accident” within the policy coverage. 

The Court also took the occasion to dismiss Delgado’s attempt to claim that prior decisions of the Court, such as Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co., 65 Cal. 2d 263 (1966), supported a duty to defend. The Court explained that Gray and cases like it involved situations whether the claim fell within the broad insuring provisions of the policy and the insurer sought to avoid a duty to defend based on the policy’s exclusion for injury “caused intentionally by or at the direction of the insured.” This is in contrast to the present case, where there was no exclusion at issue and the insured had the burden to demonstrate “an accident” and thereby fall within the policy’s insuring provision. 

In conclusion, the Court stated that “an insured unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense does not turn the resulting purposeful and intentional act of assault and battery into ‘an accident’ within the policy’s coverage clause . . .[and thus the insurer] had no duty to defend its insured in the lawsuit brought against him by the injured party.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this year, California Shock Trauma Air Rescue (“CALSTAR”), an air ambulance company rendering services primarily in California, filed an action in federal court in Sacramento against more than 75 workers’ compensation insurers and self-insured employers. CALSTAR’s lawsuit, California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, et al., argued that, as a result of it being certified by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate as an air carrier, any claims for payment it submitted to workers’ compensation insurers and self-insured employers in California should not be limited to those amounts set forth in the Official Medical Fee Schedule for ambulance services, California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9789.70.  

Rather, as a federally certified air carrier, CALSTAR asserted that the Fee Schedule is preempted by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended by the Airline Deregulation Act (“FAA/ADA”).  In other words, CALSTAR sought to avoid the limitations on payment that would apply to all other medical providers and even ground-based ambulances set forth in the Fee Schedule.  CALSTAR’s complaint alleged causes of action for declaratory relief and a number of state law claims.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss on a variety of grounds. Prominent among the bases for the motions was the claim that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over CALSTAR’s action.  Another basis for the lack of federal court subject matter jurisdiction was that CALSTAR’s claims are subject to California’s exclusive workers’ compensation system and which claims can and should be resolved through lien requests by CALSTAR at the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. 

In a detailed ruling issued July 24, 2009, the federal court granted the motions to dismiss on the basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over CALSTAR’s claim. The fact that CALSTAR sought to use a federal statute, the FAA/ADA, to claim that certain state laws were preempted was inadequate to support jurisdiction in the federal courts under well-established case law.  The court also observed that CALSTAR had not sued the State challenging its power to enforce the Fee Schedule, but rather only sued third parties (i.e., insurers and self-insured employers) who have neither “the ability to enact or enforce state laws.” In short, CALSTAR was asking the federal court for an advisory opinion as to the preemption of the Fee Schedule, something it lacked the power to do.

Barger & Wolen represented a number of the defendants in the litigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Co-authored with Marina Karvelas

Introduction

Two summers ago, in June 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued Safeco Ins. Co. et al. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 127 S.Ct. 2201 (2007). Two years later, Safeco v. Burr, remains a watershed event for insurance companies using credit scoring (or insurance scoring) to assist in underwriting and rating personal insurance policies. As insurance companies re-tool their insurance scoring models or newly enter the field of insurance scoring, they face newly defined obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. because of Safeco v. Burr. 

In Safeco v. Burr, the Supreme Court held that: (a) FCRA’s “adverse action” notifications apply to the initial rate offered for new personal insurance, and (b) the trigger for such notification rests not on the failure of the consumer to obtain the “best rate,” but rather, on the insurer’s determination of a “neutral” benchmark. 

This article explores several ramifications of the Safeco v. Burr decision that may require future clarification in the courts. For example, while Safeco v. Burr sets forth a “neutral” benchmark as the standard for determining when an insurance company should issue a notice of “adverse action,” it is unclear how much leeway insurance companies have in determining that “neutral” benchmark.

In addition, several state statutes contain definitions of “adverse action” that expressly require an insurance company to issue notice of “adverse action” in circumstances when the consumer fails to receive the “best rate.” These statutes which potentially conflict with FCRA as interpreted by Safeco v. Burr may be preempted.

Finally, although Safeco v. Burr involved a credit-based consumer report, the holdings in this case could be applied to non credit based consumer reports. If so, insurance companies may be saddled with issuing “adverse action” notices when using C.L.U.E. reports or MVRs when they rate new customers for personal insurance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Venoco, Inc. v. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1875640 (July 1, 2009), the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of Gulf Underwriters Insurance Company (“Gulf”) with regard to Venoco’s suit brought against Gulf for indemnification and a defense for lawsuits filed against it by former students and employees of Beverly Hills High School for personal injuries allegedly arising out of exposure to toxic pollution from Venoco’s oil and gas operations performed adjacent to the high school campus.

Gulf asserted that Venoco’s claim for a defense under the policy was not covered by virtue of an exclusion for instances of toxic pollution. However, an exception to the exclusion, a “buy-back” provision, provided that if Venoco notified Gulf of an occurrence within sixty (60) days of such occurrence, the toxic pollution exclusion would not apply so as to preclude coverage. 

Gulf moved for summary judgment in the trial court claiming it had no duty to defend or indemnify Venoco because it had failed to provide notice of the lawsuits brought by the former high school students and employees within the 60-day notice period. Venoco argued in part that the notice requirement was invalid, unfair and unusual because it was hidden in the policy, and it was also a violation of public policy.  It further argued that Gulf’s reliance on the notice requirement was barred by California’s “notice-prejudice” rule which operates to bar insurance companies from disavowing coverage on the basis of lack of timely notice unless the insurance company can show actual prejudice from the delay.  

Specifically, Venoco argued that because Gulf could not show it was actually prejudiced as a result of Venoco’s delay in reporting, that it could not rely on the notice requirement to deny coverage. The trial court granted Gulf’s motion finding that it was undisputed that Venoco did not comply with the 60-day notice requirement, that the 60-day requirement was not unusual or unfair under the law, and that the notice-prejudice rule did not bar Gulf’s disavowal of coverage. 

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that pollution buy-back provisions containing reporting time limits were not unusual in the oil industry, and further were not unfair or against public policy. It further rejected Venoco’s argument that the 60-day reporting requirement was unenforceable because Gulf did not prove it would suffer prejudice if notice were given later than 60 days.  Rather, it held that where a policy provides that special coverage for a particular type of claim is conditioned on express compliance with a reporting requirement, the time limit is enforceable without proof of prejudice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In most lawsuits seeking to certify a class action, the motion to determine whether a class can be certified is brought by the plaintiff(s). But not always. In a new case issued July 7 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., (Case No. 08-55223), the Appellate Court found that the District Court had properly considered and granted the defendant’s motion to deny certification.

The Vinole action was brought by a proposed class of current and former Home Loan Consultant employees of Countrywide, who claimed they were misclassified as exempt employees and thus not paid overtime and other wages. While Countrywide applied a uniform wage exception to these employees and therefore contended it was not obligated to pay them overtime, Countrywide also presented evidence that it had no control over what the employees did on a daily basis and did not monitor their work performance. As a consequence, Countrywide contended that these employees were exempt from overtime under California and Federal law.

Ten months after the lawsuit was filed – and before plaintiffs moved to certify a class – Countrywide filed a motion to deny certification of the class. The District Court granted the motion and the plaintiffs took an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The primary argument raised on appeal was the assertion that it was per se procedurally improper for the District Court to have decided a motion to deny class certification, before the plaintiffs had brought their affirmative motion for class certification. The court advised, however, “[a]lthough we have not previously addressed this argument directly, we conclude that Rule 23 does not preclude a defendant from bringing a ‘preemptive’ motion to deny certification.” 

In support of that conclusion, the court first explained that nothing in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 “either vests plaintiffs with the exclusive right to put the class certification issue before the district court or prohibits a defendant from seeking early resolution of the class certification question.” It then rejected plaintiffs’ argument that allowing such motions to deny certification would open “troubling new territory,” since federal courts have “repeatedly considered defendants’ motions to deny class certification.” It also rejected plaintiffs’ reliance on cases that plaintiffs claimed espoused a “per se rule” disallowing such preemptive motions.

The plaintiffs argued that it was procedurally unfair for Countrywide to move to deny class certification prior to the pre-trial motion deadline and before plaintiffs had sufficient time to conduct discovery. The Ninth Circuit quickly disposed of these assertions, finding that there was no timing restriction violated by Countrywide and the plaintiffs had nearly ten months to conduct informal and formal discovery to oppose Countrywide’s motion. In other words, there is no procedural unfairness in the trial court deciding Countrywide’s motion when it did.

Finally, plaintiffs argued that the District Court had abused its discretion by finding common issues did not predominate in light of the uniform wage exemption employed by Countrywide as to the plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit found, however, that despite using such a uniform exemption, there were still individualized inquiries that would need to be made as to how each of the employees carried out his or her work, perhaps requiring “several hundred mini-trials” with respect to each employee’s actual work performance.

The lesson to be learned from Vinole is that, in the appropriate case, defendants should consider the filing of a motion to deny class certification, which may be an effective vehicle to short-circuit a putative class action.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In State Farm v. Mintarsih, (pdf) (Case No. B202888), the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal found that an insurer is not liable under a policy’s supplementary payment provision for an attorney’s fee award resulting from claims that were not potentially covered under the policy.

This ruling was in sharp contrast to a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal in Pritchard v. Liberty Mutual, 84 Cal. App. 4th 890 (2000) that held that in a suit that the insurer defends, the supplementary payment provision covers attorney’s fees “despite the absence of even the possibility of coverage for the causes of action that generated the large cost award.” The Mintarsih ruling, drafted by the well-regarded Justice Walter Croskey, is a very favorable ruling for insurers.

State Farm’s insureds were found to have held their domestic servant a virtual slave, awarding the servant $87,000 in damages on four tort theories – negligence, negligence per se, false imprisonment and fraud. Additionally, $740,000 was awarded for Labor Code violations. State Farm had defended the insureds under a reservation of rights.

While it was uncontested that State Farm was not required to cover the $740,000 in Labor Code violations, there was a question as to whether State Farm was required to pay the attorney’s fees that the household servant was entitled to receive under the Labor Code, due to the inclusion of the supplementary payment provision of the insureds’ policy, in which State Farm agreed to pay “claim expenses” over and above the limits of liability, including “expenses we incur and costs taxed against an Insured in suits we defend.” 

The Court recognized that the suit initiated by the domestic servant against the insured was a “mixed claims” case – a case presenting claims where there was a potential for coverage (the tort claims) and claims where there was no potential for coverage (the Labor Code claims).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 29, 2009, the California Supreme Court issued two decisions that restrict the use of California Business & Professions Code section 17200, otherwise known as the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Both cases addressed aspects of the UCL as it now exists since the passage of Proposition 64, which occurred in November 2004. 

In one case, the Court, relying on the ballot materials that accompanied the proposition, confirmed that a private party may only pursue a representative claim under the UCL if that party complies with class action requirements. In the other case, the Court held that a labor union, which itself has not suffered actual injury, may not bring a UCL claim on behalf of its members, even if such members have assigned their rights to the union or if those rights are based on the doctrine of “associational standing.” These two nearly unanimous decisions come just weeks after the Court, in a divided 4-3 decision, In Re Tobacco II Cases (decided May 18, 2009), found that following Proposition 64 only the class representatives (and not the absent class members) need to meet the “actual injury” standing requirement of the UCL.

The first decision, Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy) (pdf), involved a dairy employee who sued his former employer and others for a variety of California Labor Code violations and other labor regulatory violations. He also brought claims under the UCL on behalf of himself and other current and former employees of the defendants. The trial court struck the UCL claims on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to satisfy the pleading requirements for a class action.  The Court of Appeal agreed, and the Supreme Court accepted review. In affirming the judgment below, the Court reviewed the Proposition 64 portion of the Voter Information Guide prepared by the Secretary of State issued in connection with the November 2, 2004 election, observing that there is “no doubt” that “one purpose of Proposition 64 was to impose class action requirements on private plaintiffs’ representative actions brought under the” UCL. In California, those class action requirements arise out of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382.

The second decision, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (First Transit, Inc.) (pdf), also addressed another aspect of the UCL modified by the passage of Proposition 64, specifically the standing requirement under Business & Professions Code section 17203 that a private party claim may only be brought by a “person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Kearns v. Ford Motor Company, --- F.3d ----, 2009 WL 1578535 (9thCir. June 8, 2009), plaintiff William Kearn sued Ford for alleged violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) arising out of Ford’s Certified Pre-Owned (“CPO”) vehicle program. Kearn’s complaint generically alleged that Ford had made false and misleading statements concerning the safety and reliability of its CPO vehicles (without identifying who made the statements, the specific content of the statements, or when and how Kearn was exposed to such statements), and failed to disclose to consumers Ford’s lack of actual oversight in determining whether used vehicles qualify for the CPO program.  Kearn alleged that he was harmed by the foregoing conduct because he had paid a higher price for a CPO vehicle then he would have paid for a non-CPO vehicle, even though there was no difference between the two. While Kearn alleged that Ford’s conduct constitutes an unfair business practice under California law, he did not assert any claims for fraud in the complaint.

In the district court, Ford brought a motion to dismiss Kearn’s complaint for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court granted the motion and Kearn appealed, principally arguing that Rule 9(b) does not apply to California’s consumer protection statutes because California courts have not applied Rule 9(b) to such statutes, and that Rule 9(b) does not apply to his CLRA and UCL claims because they are not grounded in fraud. 

In rejecting Kearn’s arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that it is well established that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – including Rule 9(b) – apply in federal court, “irrespective of the source of the subject matter jurisdiction, and irrespective of whether the substantive law at issue is state or federal.” The Court further noted that while a federal court examines state law to determine whether the elements of fraud have been sufficiently pled to state a cause of action, the Rule 9(b) requirement that fraud be pled with specificity is a federally imposed rule. The Court also held that, while fraud is not a necessary element of a claim under the CLRA or UCL, if the plaintiff nevertheless alleges a unified course of fraudulent conduct and relies entirely on that course of conduct as the basis of the CLRA or UCL claim, the CLRA or UCL claim is considered to be “grounded in fraud” or sounding in fraud such that the complaint as a whole must satisfy the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b).

Get a copy of the opinion here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court in Travelers Indemnity Company v. Bailey, 57 U.S. ___ (2009) last week reversed a Second Circuit opinion that could have caused insurance companies concerns when contributing to a settlement fund to resolve mass tort claims in Bankruptcy Court. 

More than 20 years ago, in 1986, a federal bankruptcy court issued an order that discharged one of the largest producers of products containing asbestos, Johns-Manville Corporation, and each of its insurers from all future tort liability arising under the company’s indemnity policies. Johns-Manville’s primary indemnity insurer, Travelers, deposited $80 million (the full value of their policies) into a settlement trust for all potential claimants, which was intended to cut-off all of Travelers’ future liability due to relationship with the company. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

How does one insurer get another insurer to contribute to the defense costs of a common insured? Until now, the issue under California law was murky. That murkiness dissipated with the June 24, 2009, decision of the California Court of Appeal in OneBeacon America Insurance Company v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, et al.

In OneBeacon America, the court concluded that one liability insurer’s claim for equitable contribution for defense costs against another liability insurer arises once notice is provided to the latter insurer which, upon diligent inquiry by that latter insurer, reveals the potential for exposure to a claim for equitable contribution and provides the insurer the opportunity to investigate and participate in the defense in the underlying litigation.

The case arises out of an underlying lawsuit for environmental contamination involving a number of related insureds (a corporation and several individuals) filed in 1998. In 1999, certain of those insureds sent notice of the underlying action to OneBeacon America Insurance Company, which began defending the insureds at that time. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and Insurance Company of the West (ICW) also provided insurance coverage to one or more of the insureds, and in early 1999, counsel for certain of the insureds, began sending notice letters and other correspondence to Fireman’s Fund and ICW.

Neither insurer agreed to participate in the defense of any of the insureds at that time, but ultimately in 2002 or 2003 they agreed to share in the defense of the insureds with OneBeacon, but only from 2002 forward. OneBeacon filed an action for equitable subrogation in 2005, seeking to recover from Fireman’s Fund and ICW a “time-on-the-risk” allocation of the defense costs OneBeacon paid for alone between 1999 and 2002.

While the precise facts involving “notice” and the communications with each insurer were convoluted and somewhat distinct, essentially Fireman’s Fund and ICW contended that they did not have actual or constructive adequate notice that they has issued policies to the insureds providing coverage. The trial court found in favor of Fireman’s Fund and ICW, but the Court of Appeal reversed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link