Written by Emily Cuatto and Rebecca Marcyes*
The following published decisions from the California Supreme Court, California courts of appeal, and Ninth Circuit may be of interest to California insurance law practitioners.
In Ernst and Haas Management Co., Inc. v. Hiscox, Inc., 23 F.4th 1195 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit held that a company was entitled to coverage under its commercial crime insurance policy for a company employee's issuance of two $50,000 wire transfers in response to fraudulent emails that appeared to be from the company's managing broker.
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Robinson, 76 Cal. App. 5th 276 (2022), the court of appeal (First Dist., Div. One) held that writ relief is the only way to obtain appellate review of an erroneous trial court discovery order in an uninsured motorist arbitration proceeding. Even though such relief is discretionary, the possibility of such relief provides greater protection for the parties than exists in ordinary arbitration proceedings, in which such errors are entirely unreviewable absent the grounds identified in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2.
In People ex rel. Ellinger v. Magill, 77 Cal. App. 5th 287 (2022), the court of appeal (Fourth Dist., Div. Two) held the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) targets deceptive conduct towards insurers, not by them. Accordingly, where a workers' compensation carrier denied a claim based on its incorrect assertion that an employee never reported his workplace injury to his supervisor, the employee could not use the IFPA to bring a qui tam claim against the carrier and its agents for improper claim handling practices.
In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. ConAgra Grocery Products Co., LLC, 77 Cal. App. 5th 729 (2022), the court of appeal (First Dist., Div. Two) held that California Insurance Code section 533 barred coverage for fund contributions made to abate a public nuisance caused by lead paint. ConAgra, the successor corporation in a merger with notice that it was purchasing the predecessor's liabilities, was as responsible as the predecessor for the predecessor's willful acts—in this case, promoting lead-based paint throughout the community—and was required to contribute to a local abatement fund to remediate contamination in residential homes.
After California Insurance Company transacted without the required regulatory approval from the California Department of Insurance, and then...
