Insurance Litigation Law Blog | Regulatory Law | Bad Faith | California | Lawyer | Attorney | Barger & Wolen

By Sam Sorich and Larry Golub

In a unanimous opinion handed down on December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Superior Court that the Court of Appeal used an erroneous analysis when it decided that claims adjusters are not exempt from California’s overtime pay requirement. 

The California Labor Code sets forth a general requirement that employees are entitled to overtime pay for work in excess of eight hours in one workday or 40 hours in one week. However, the Code exempts administrative employees from the overtime pay requirement.

Claims adjusters employed by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation sued the companies for damages based on the failure to pay them for overtime work. The companies argued that the adjusters were administrative employees and thus were not entitled to overtime pay.

The California Court of Appeal rejected the insurance companies’ argument, primarily relying on a prior Court of Appeal decision in Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 87 Cal. App. 4th 805 (2001). The companies asked the California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s ruling concluded that the Court of Appeal used an incorrect analysis when it rejected the argument that the adjusters were administrative employees. According to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal relied too heavily on the administrative/production worker dichotomy used in the Bell decision and failed to consider more recent regulations issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission and applicable federal regulations which are supposed to guide California in applying the administrative employee exemption to the general overtime requirement.

In reversing the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Supreme Court remanded  the case back to the Court of Appeal with directions that it apply the legal standards that are set forth in the Supreme Court’s ruling.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a long-awaited, and nearly unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court has held that an injured plaintiff whose medical expenses are paid through private health insurance may recover as economic damages no more than the amounts paid by the plaintiff’s insurer for those medical services, and that this discounted amount does not fall within the collateral source rule. The decision is Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., decided August 18, 2011.

Rebecca Howell was injured in an automobile accident caused by a driver of Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. The total amount billed by her medical providers for her medical care up to the time of trial was $189,978.63, but due to the preexisting contracts those providers had entered into with Howell’s health insurer, the bills were reduced by $130,286.90, such that the amounts paid to (and accepted by) the providers was only $59,691.73. 

At trial, Howell sought to recover the full amount of her medical bills, not the amount that her medical providers had accepted. While allowing Howell to present her the full-billed amounts to the jury, the trial court reduced those amounts in post-trial motion to the $59,691.73 paid to and accepted by the providers.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the reduction order on the ground that it violated the collateral source rule, and the Supreme Court accepted review of the case to resolve the following issue: 

Is the negotiated rate differential – the difference between the full billed rate for medical care and the actual amount paid as negotiated between a medical provider and an insurer – a collateral source benefit under the collateral source rule, which allows a plaintiff to collect that amount as economic damages, or is the plaintiff limited in economic damages to the amount the medical provider accepts as payment?

After providing a detailed discussion of the history of the collateral source rule, as “unequivocally reaffirmed” by the Court’s in the decision Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., 2 Cal.3d 1, 6 (1970), and how that rule has been addressed over the past 40 years in case law (mostly involving Medi-Cal benefits) or excepted by statute in limited contexts, the Supreme Court explained that none of the prior cases had “discussed the question, central to the arguments in this case, of whether restricting recovery to amounts actually paid by a plaintiff or on his or her behalf contravenes the collateral source rule.” 

The Court then proceeded to resolve the four issues necessary to answer this question:

First, based on certain California Civil Code sections and the provisions of the Restatement of Torts, and as guided by a prior Court of Appeal decision involving Medi-Cal benefits, Hanif v. Housing Authority, 200 Cal. App. 3d 635 (1988), the Court held that

“a plaintiff may recover as economic damages no more than the reasonable value of the medical services received and is not entitled to recover the reasonable value if his or her actual loss was less.” (Emphasis by Court.)  

This is based on the well-established rule that a plaintiff’s expenses, to be recoverable, must not only be incurred but reasonable, and that this rule “applies when a collateral source, such as the plaintiff’s health insurer, has obtained a discount for its payments on the plaintiff’s behalf.”

Second, the basis for the limitation on recovery as to Medi-Cal recipients, adopted in the Hanif case, similarly applies to plaintiffs like Howell who possess private medical insurance. Since, by the purchase of such insurance, Howell’s prospective liability was limited to the amounts her medical insurer had agreed to pay the providers for the medical services they were to render, Howell could not “meaningfully be said ever to have incurred the full charges” or ever been personally liable for the full charges. 

Third, as to the argument that the tortfeasor (Hamilton in this case) would obtain a windfall “merely because the injured person’s health insurer has negotiated a favorable rate of payment with the person’s medical provider,” the Court disagreed. After addressing the “complexities of contemporary pricing and reimbursement patterns for medical providers,” the Court observed that the “negotiated prices” medical providers accept from health insurers “makes at least as much sense, and arguably more, than” the full prices that are billed by such providers where there is no negotiation between buyer and seller. 

“Accordingly, a tortfeasor who pays only the discounted amount as damages does not generally receive a windfall and is not generally underdeterred from engaging in risky conduct.”

Finally, in response to the contention by Howell that the “negotiated rate differential” is a benefit provided to the insured plaintiff under her policy and should be recoverable under the collateral source rule, the Court disagreed with this assertion as well. 

Since Howell did not incur liability for the full bills generated by the medical providers, due to the fact that her providers had agreed with her insurer on a different price schedule, she could not recoup those full bills as damages for economic loss under the collateral source rule. Moreover, the rule does not apply to the negotiated rate differential since it is not primarily a benefit to the plaintiff but the “primary benefit of discounted rates for medical care goes to the payer of those rates – that is, in largest part, to the insurer.”

As noted above, the Court’s decision was not wholly unanimous, as one Justice dissented. That Justice’s position was that, while Howell should not be able to recoup “the gross amount of her potentially inflated medical bills,” neither should they “be capped at the discounted amount her medical providers agreed to accept as payment in full from her insurer.” Instead, the dissent opted for an intermediate position, claiming this is the majority rule across the country: “Howell should be entitled to recover the reasonable value or market value of such services, as determined by expert testimony at trial.”  

With six Justices signing off on the Court’s opinion, however, the collateral source rule will not require defendants (or their liability insurers) in California to pay any amount greater for medical expenses than the discounted amounts paid by the insured person’s health insurer and accepted by her medical providers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

By Larry Golub and Marina Karvelas

In Fairbanks v. Farmers New World Life Ins. Co., decided July 13, 2011, California's Second Appellate District, Division Three, upheld the trial court’s denial of class certification for a proposed nationwide class of universal life insurance policyholders. Plaintiffs sued Farmers New World Life Insurance Company and Farmers Group, Inc. (collectively, “Farmers”) alleging violations of the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200, “UCL”) in the marketing and sale of universal life insurance policies.  

The decision, authored by Justice Walter Croskey, contains in its opening pages an extensive discussion of universal life insurance policies. Justice Croskey’s discussion is well worth the read as it presents in simple and understandable terms many of the intricacies of universal life insurance.

Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint numerous theories of wrongdoing against Farmers; however, their motion for class certification was narrowly tailored and based only on one of the three prongs of the UCL, that of a fraudulent business practices. 

Relying on a series of recent decisions (Knapp v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 195 Cal. App. 4th 932 (2011); Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 178 Cal. App. 4th 830 (2009), and Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court, 182 Cal. App. 4th 622 (2010)), the Fairbanks opinion reiterates the requirements for class certification under the fraudulent prong of the UCL:

“[W]hen the class action is based on alleged misrepresentations, a class certification denial will be upheld when individual evidence will be required to determine whether the representations at issue were actually made to each member of the class.”

Finding the case “virtually identical” to Kaldenbach, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s determination that the alleged misrepresentations were not commonly made to members of the class and thus class certification was properly denied.  (For a discussion of the Kaldenbach case, see our firm’s prior blog.)

Plaintiffs argued that the class action should proceed on the theory that the language in the policies was misleading. However, the class certification motion was not based on the theory that the policy language standing alone was misleading. Even if it were, “it is still impossible to consider the language of the policies without considering the information conveyed by the Farmers agents in the process of selling them.” 

In addition, the Fairbanks Court determined that the materiality of the alleged misrepresentation was likewise not subject to common proof. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310, 332 (2011), the standard for materiality is whether “a reasonable man would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question.” While noting that the standard is objective, the Court of Appeal nonetheless agreed with the trial court that the materiality of the representations at issue in the case was a matter of individual proof for any given policyholder. 

In concluding, the Court of Appeal refused to address whether commonality existed with respect to any other purported classes. None of the alternative theories were presented to the trial court in the class certification motion. “[W]e leave it to the trial court’s discretion, on remand, to determine whether it should consider any subsequent motion for class certification, should plaintiffs choose to proceed on an alternative basis.”

As is often the case in the class certification context, plaintiffs will seek to define as narrow a class as possible to present a “common issue” for certification purposes, which attempt sometimes undercuts not only the ability to obtain certification (as in the Fairbanks situation) but, even if it does survive certification, sets up a defense motion for summary judgment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In 1988, the California Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos., 46 Cal. 3d 287, disallowing private rights of action based on violations of the Unfair Insurance Practice Act (“UIPA”), otherwise known as third-party bad faith claims. Shortly thereafter, the prohibition was extended to first-party bad faith claims.

Most significantly, a series of Court of Appeal decisions disallowed violations of the UIPA to be brought as claims under the California’s “Unfair Competition Law” (Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., or the “UCL”). 

As one court concluded:

we have no difficulty in [holding] the Business and Professions Code provides no toehold for scaling the barriers of Moradi-Shalal.” Safeco Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 216 Cal. App. 3d 1491, 1494 (1990). 

More recently, another court held that “parties cannot plead around Moradi-Shalal’s holding by merely relabeling their cause of action as one for unfair competition.” Textron Financial Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 118 Cal. App. 4th 1061, 1070 (2004).

In November 2009, we reported on Zhang v. Superior Court, a case that 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 an insured asserts what appear to be violations of the UIPA is not necessarily an end run around Moradi-Shalal so long as the insured also alleges the insurer acted unfairly by engaging in false and deceptive advertising, suggesting it would provide coverage in the event of a loss, when it had no intent to do so. 

The case was short-lived, as the Supreme Court accepted review in February 2010 and the decision became depublished. While the Zhang case is fully briefed, the Supreme Court has not yet set oral argument.

On June 15, however, another Court of Appeal decision issued again sought to undercut the prohibition on using the UCL to pursue UIPA-like claims. 

In Hughes v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., the plaintiff sued his insurer in a purported class action based on the automobile insurer’s alleged company-wide practice of steering its insureds to repair shops that were part of Progressive’s Direct Repair Program (DRP) and misrepresenting their ability to take their vehicle to a non-DRP repair shop. 

The sole claim alleged was under the UCL, but the predicate statute relied on to support the UCL claim was Insurance Code section 758.5.

That statute, which prohibits insurers from requiring an insured’s vehicle to be repaired at a specific repair shop, or suggesting a specific shop be used, unless the insured is informed in writing of his or her rights to select another repair shop, does not, just like the UIPA, permit a private right of action but only enforcement by the Insurance Commissioner pursuant to the UIPA. 

Accordingly, the trial court sustained the insurer’s demurrer to the complaint, concluding that just as the UCL could not be used to circumvent UIPA claims under Moradi-Shalal, neither could a UCL claim proceed based upon Section 758.5.    

The Court of Appeal reversed, and concluded that Moradi-Shalal does not bar a claim by an insured against an insurer under the UCL based solely on the allegations the insurer violated Section 758.5. 

After discussing in detail the decisions issued since the time of Moradi-Shalal vis-à-vis the UCL, as well as the legislative history of Section 758.5, and then relying on a parsed reading of the language of the UCL in which its remedies are “cumulative” to other laws unless otherwise “expressly” provided, the court found that an alleged violation of a statute like Section 758.5, so long as it does not involve conduct violating the UIPA, “may serve as the predicate for a UCL claim absent an express legislative direction to the contrary.”  

The decision, however, was not one of clear unanimity. One of the three Justices on the appellate panel issued his own concurring opinion, in which he expressed his “considerable misgivings” as to the majority opinion. After noting that the opinion “hangs precipitously on one word, namely ‘express,” Justice Fred Woods lamented that the social problems sought to be addressed by the Moradi-Shalal decision and various legislative remedies might now be undone, and that he saw “storm warnings on the horizon.”

Perhaps, just as the Supreme Court accepted review of the Zhang case last year to address that appellate decision seeking to create a chink in the armor of Moradi-Shalal, it will similarly accept review of Hughes to address this latest attack on the scope of Moradi-Shalal and bring some certainty to whether the reach of the UCL is as broad as these two lower appellate courts have held. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Barger & Wolen is proud to join JVP Partners in sponsoring the 14th Annual Insurance Forum on November 9th, 2010 in Chicago. This complimentary event is open to all.

14th Annual Insurance Forum
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
The Union League Club
65 West Jackson
Chicago, IL

What is the Insurance Forum? The Forum is an event presented by the Insurance Forum Committee, chaired by Kenneth M. Weine. This is an executive level program designed for insurance and risk management professionals, accountants, attorneys, corporate officers, financial examiners, and regulators.

Can I Earn Continuing Education Credit? Continuing Education credit is available for attorneys, AIRs, CPAs, CFEs, CIRs and other insurance designations. (Certain restrictions apply, so please verify that your designation is approved in the state(s) you require).

To register for this complimentary event, click here

For more information, click here

Panels & Speakers (order subject to change)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Village Northridge Homeowners Association v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (decided August 30, 2010), the California Supreme Court rejected an insured’s attempt to sue State Farm for fraud in inducing settlement of the insured’s property damage claim. The insured alleged the settlement was procured by State Farm’s undervaluing of the earthquake loss and misrepresentation of the policy limits to be only $4,979,900, while the limits were allegedly $11,905,500. 

While the settlement agreement between State Farm and the insured released all known and potential claims related to the Northridge Earthquake damage claims, the insured insisted it need not seek to rescind the settlement agreement but could instead elect to affirm the settlement and release, and also then sue for fraud damages. 

As noted by the Court, the insured “seeks to affirm those parts of the agreement that benefit it, but to invalidate a major part of the agreement that benefits State Farm.” This is a rescission remedy and the party seeking to rescind must restore benefits received under the contract.  Civ. Code § 1688 et seq. 

The Court recognized that other jurisdictions, relying on common law principles, have allowed a party challenging a settlement to “affirm and sue” for fraud in the inducement without restoring benefits.

In significant contrast, the California Legislature has spoken in this area and specifically rejected the “affirm and sue” principle.

Instead, the Civil Code requires the aggrieved party to rescind and restore consideration received in their original settlement and release with the caveat that any actual return of benefits may be delayed until final judgment unless it substantially prejudices the defendant. Civ. Code § 1693. 

The Court rejected public policy arguments that an “affirm and sue” principle was necessary to combat fraud in settlements. In closing, the Court stated: 

The Legislature has created a fair and equitable remedy to address the alleged fraud problem:  rescission of the release, followed by suit. When restoration is impossible because the settlement monies have been spent, the financially constrained parties can turn to section 1693 to delay restoration until judgment, unless the defendants can show substantial prejudice. Our statutory scheme therefore effectively ensures that plaintiffs who may have been defrauded in the settlement process will be allowed access to the courts.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On August 4, 2010, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed a summary judgment in favor of State Farm in connection with the insurer’s denial of a claim under a first party business interruption policy (MRI Healthcare Center v. State Farm General Insurance Company). The case involved a damage claim to an MRI machine and loss of income after the machine did not “ramp up” after it was voluntarily “ramped down.” 

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the MRI machine did not sustain “physical loss,” nor was the alleged loss the result of an “accident” as required under the policy.

Background

MRI Healthcare Center of Glendale utilized an MRI machine for scanning purposes. To operate properly, the MRI machine had to be kept in a specially designed and constructed room to keep out electrical or radio wave interference. MRI Healthcare had used the MRI machine for more than 14 years before the claimed loss. 

As a result of storms, MRI Healthcare’s landlord was required to repair the roof over the room housing the MRI machine. These repairs could not be undertaken until the MRI machine was demagnetized, or “ramped down.” MRI Healthcare was informed that due to the age of the machine, there was no guarantee that the machine could be successfully “ramped up” again. 

After the MRI machine was ramped down and the repairs to the roof were made, the machine failed to ramp back up as previously warned. 

MRI Healthcare then submitted a claim to State Farm, alleging that the failure of the MRI machine to ramp back up constituted “damage” which was proximately caused by the storms that damaged the roof. State Farm denied the claim.

Decision

The appellate court found that, under the undisputed facts, MRI Healthcare could not meet the fundamental precondition to coverage of “accidental direct physical loss” to insured property. The court held that the ramp down procedure was the event that damaged the MRI machine, and that it did not cause “physical loss” to the machine. 

For there to be a “loss” under the meaning of the policy, the court stated that some external force must have acted upon the insured property to cause a physical change in the condition of the property. The court further found that ramping down of the MRI machine was intentional and not “accidental” as it was not “unintended and unexpected by the insured.” 

Finally, the court rejected MRI Healthcare’s contention that the storms were the “efficient proximate cause” of the loss. The court held that, even if the storms set in motion the course of events leading to the ramp down of the MRI machine, it ultimately was the ramping down procedure itself that was the sole, and predominate, cause of MRI Healthcare’s loss.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Earlier today, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion concluding that Civil Code section 3345, which allows treble damages to be awarded to seniors when a statute provides for a fine or penalty, is not permitted under the Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code section 17200 (the “UCL”). 

The decision, Clark v. Superior Court (National Western Life Insurance Company), confirms that the only monetary remedy available under the UCL is restitution, and that a claim for treble damages is not restitution, nor is the nature of restitution comparable to a penalty.

The plaintiffs in the case filed a class action lawsuit against National Western Life Insurance Company arising out of the sale of deferred annuities issued to California residents who were senior citizens. The trial court denied certification as to all claims except one under the UCL. In addition to seeking restitution in the UCL claim, the plaintiffs sought treble damages on their restitution claim under section 3345.

As reported in our earlier blog post last September when the Supreme Court accepted review, in the more than two decades since the enactment of section 3345, no case had ever permitted any sort of damages, be they compensatory, treble or punitive, under the UCL. The trial court dismissed the claim for treble damages, but the Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the plain meaning of section 3345 applied to a private action seeking restitution under the UCL.

In reversing the decision issued by the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court focused on two issues. First, the Court considered whether a claim under section 3345 only applies to treble amounts awarded under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), since the first subsection of section 3345 makes reference to and cites language from the CLRA. The Court concluded that a claim under section 3345 is not so limited, observing that, if trebling was to apply only to a claim under the CLRA, there would have been no need for a separate statute (section 3345); the Legislature could have just amended the CLRA. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did not articulate any other statutes that might be able to be trebled under section 3345.

After this, the Supreme Court specifically addressed whether section 3345 trebling was permitted under the UCL. The Court focused on the salient language of section 3345 where it requires the underlying statute to impose a “fine, or a civil penalty . . . or any other remedy the purpose of which is to punish or deter,” and found that it cannot refer to the UCL. First, citing to a number of its past decisions, the Court reiterated that the only monetary remedy under the UCL is restitution. 

Next, the Court relied on the well-established canon of statutory construction that when there is a general term followed by various specific terms, as is the case in the language of section 3345 just quoted, the general term must be limited to the nature of the specific terms. In other words, “any other remedy” must refer to a remedy in the nature of a penalty, and thus section 3345 trebling is only allowed when a statute permits a remedy that is in the nature of a penalty. The UCL, however, is not such a statute. Confirming that restitution only allows the restoration of something taken, or a return to the status quo, restitution under the UCL is not a penalty, which is a recovery without reference to the actual damage sustained. In sum, the Supreme Court concluded:

Because restitution in a private action brought under the unfair competition law is measured by what was taken from the plaintiff, that remedy is not a penalty and hence does not fall within the trebled recovery provision of Civil Code section 3345, subdivision (b).

Kent Keller and Larry Golub of Barger & Wolen represent National Western Life Insurance Company in the Clark case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On June 11, 2010, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reissued its decision (following rehearing) in Legacy Vulcan v. Superior Court (Transport Insurance Company), and held that an umbrella insurer became a “primary umbrella” insurer and was obligated to defend its insured since no scheduled underlying insurance applied, and the $100,000 self-insured retention under the umbrella policy was applicable only to the insurer’s indemnity obligation. 

The decision, while providing a detailed analysis of the umbrella/excess policy issued by Transport, presents more of an isolated instance of an insurer not carefully limiting the scope of its defense obligation under a policy issued nearly 30 years ago, rather than an opinion providing any broad pronouncement that umbrella insurers are to provide a duty to defend from dollar one.

Vulcan was named in multiple lawsuits claiming environmental contamination and alleging damages occurring over a number of years, including when Transport’s Excess Catastrophe Liability Policy was in effect. Vulcan tendered the defense of the actions to several insurers, including Transport, but none of the insurers offered a defense. Vulcan paid for its own defense and settled the lawsuits. Transport filed a declaratory relief action against Vulcan to determine its rights and obligations under the policy.

The coverage action proceeded with the parties stipulating to resolve certain legal issues before trial, and many of the facts of the dispute (including the reasons why the underlying insurers did not provide a defense to Vulcan) did not make their way into the Court of Appeal’s decision. The trial court found that Transport had no duty to defend Vulcan until it established that the applicable underlying insurance had been exhausted and upon a showing that the claims were actually covered.  

In analyzing coverage under the Transport policy, the appellate court went into great detail examining the language used by Transport in its insuring agreements, limits of liability section, definitions, and conditions. The court held that the Transport policy provided both excess and umbrella coverage. With respect to the umbrella coverage portion, and based on the ambiguity of the policy’s use of the unqualified term “underlying insurance” in the insuring agreement, the court held that, under the facts of this case (where no primary or underlying insurer defended Vulcan), Transport’s umbrella coverage was primary umbrella defense coverage. 

Finding the umbrella coverage to be primary, the ordinary rules regarding a primary insurer’s duty to defend applied. As such, Transport was obligated to defend Vulcan regardless of the exhaustion of any underlying insurance and regardless of the provision for a $100,000 retained limit (which, in this case, was found to only apply to the duty to indemnify). Moreover, Vulcan did not need to establish that the claims were actually covered under the Transport policy to trigger the duty to defend, but merely show a potential for coverage. 

In its analysis, the court made clear that the result here was based on the policy language at issue. For example, the court observed that “the impact of a policy reference to a ‘self-insured retention’ or ‘retained limit’ on the duty to defend will depend on the language of a particular policy,” and it referenced cases where policy language expressly stated there was no duty to defend unless the retained limit was exhausted. 

This case therefore stands as another warning to insurers to be careful in drafting policy language, and this is especially true when it come to the duty to defend.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the backdrop of the raging battle over healthcare reform, a Los Angeles jury rendered on Monday a verdict in favor of an insured against Anthem Blue Cross arising out of the health insurer’s refusal to provide coverage for an out-of-state liver transplant. The case, Ephram Nehme v. Wellpoint, Inc.; Blue Cross of California d/b/a/ Anthem Blue Cross, initially filed on August 14, 2008, has been closely followed in the legal and health insurance communities.

As reported in the Los Angeles Times, the jury found, by a vote of 10-2, that Anthem Blue Cross had breached its contract by refusing to pay for the cost of the out-of-state transplant operation, and by a vote of 9-3 that Anthem Blue Cross had acted in bad faith. Anthem Blue Cross stated in the article that its contract provides that transplants must be preformed in California and that it had approved Nehme for a transplant at UCLA Medical Center once his name came up on the UCLA waiting list. The same article stated that the jury awarded Nehme $206,000 for the cost of the operation, and that he would also be able to recoup his legal fees. (Under California law, pursuant to the decision in Brandt v. Superior Court, upon a finding that an insurer has acted in bad faith, the insured is able to seek to recover only those attorney’s fees incurred to obtain the contract benefits, but not the fees incurred to show bad faith.) The jury did not, however, award any punitive damages against Anthem Blue Cross.

The trial court proceedings are not yet concluded, with further post-trial motions to be filed, and it is unknown whether Anthem Blue Cross will appeal the jury’s verdict.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This week, the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation of the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DWC”) proposed a regulation, California Code of Regulations, title 8, Section 9789.70(c), that would completely exempt air ambulance companies from the Official Medical Fee Schedule (“OMFS”) that applies to all other providers who furnish medical services under the California workers’ compensation system.

The DWC’s purported impetus for this abrupt action was “to avoid the hazards and cost of litigation against the Division,” as stated in the DWC’s Initial Statement of Reasons. That Statement further advised that the DWC based its proposed regulation on the contention that the OMFS may likely be preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which it says “prohibits states from adopting or enforcing regulations which have any effect on airline rates of air carriers.”

This issue of preemption by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (“FAA/ADA”), was asserted in a lawsuit filed last year by California Shock Trauma Air Rescue (“CALSTAR”), an air ambulance company rendering services primarily in California. That action, filed in federal court in Sacramento against more than 75 workers’ compensation insurers and self-insured employers, is entitled California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, et al.  This blog reported on that case on July 30, 2009, after the federal district court dismissed the case, finding that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over CALSTAR’s claims.  

CALSTAR then appealed the action to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case is now fully briefed and awaiting oral argument.

Apparently not satisfied with the court's decision in its federal court action, CALSTAR threatened to sue the DWC unless it did something to offer relief to CALSTAR and other air ambulance companies.  In an article posted on workcompcentral.com, the president and chief executive officer of CALSTAR stated that, after having the federal trial court dismiss his company’s action, “we went back to the DWC and said, ‘We’ve been instructed to sue you,’ is what brought this action on their part.” It is clear that the threat of a lawsuit prompted the DWC to issue the proposed regulation and completely exempt CALSTAR and other air ambulance companies from the ambit of the OMFS.  

The defendants in the pending federal court action contend that the FAA/ADA does not preempt the OMFS as it applies to the medical services that air ambulance companies provide in California, and indeed exempting such companies from the scope of the OMFS on preemption ground is anathema to the legislative goals and purposes of the FAA/ADA. Larry Golub and Sandra Weishart of Barger & Wolen LLP represent a number of the defendants in the litigation.

The DWC will be holding a full-day hearing on the proposed regulation in Oakland on Tuesday, April 13, 2010, to receive statements and argument from all interested persons.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

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