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

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• 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

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

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 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