Insurance Coverage Considerations Stemming from the New California Child Victims Act

On October 13, 2019, when California’s governor signed AB 218—the California Child Victims Act (CCVA)—California became one of at least nine other states to enact some form of window legislation for childhood victims of sexual assault. The CCVA became effective on Jan. 1, 2020. This article explores the CCVA’s pertinent changes to existing law for pursuing childhood sexual assault claims, as well as some of the key insurance coverage issues arising from this new law.

The text of the CCVA is substantively similar to other …

Continue Reading

Insurer Scores a Slam Dunk in TCPA Suit Before the Ninth Circuit

A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit is sure to catch the eye of insurers for its favorable reasoning rejecting coverage as well as a potential warning sign that policyholders are seeking coverage for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) suits beyond CGL policies. In Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 15-55777, 2017 WL 3613340 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2017), the Ninth Circuit determined there was no coverage for violations of the TCPA under a D&O policy. In short, by analyzing the …

Continue Reading

Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say, Says California Federal District Court

A California federal district court determined a standard Breach of Contract Exclusion under Coverage B of a CGL policy did not preclude the duty to defend for alleged disparagement. In MedeAnalytics, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., the United States District Court for the Northern District of California interpreted the exclusion very narrowly, finding it applied only to actual — and not alleged — breaches of contract and found a duty to defend.

As background, the claimant alleged the policyholder made disparaging comments in order …

Continue Reading

A Sporting Retailer’s Bid for Coverage Gets Punted by the Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit recently handed down a decision holding that insurers did not have a duty to defend their policyholder, a sporting goods retailer, in several ZIP code class action lawsuits.  The class action lawsuit all arose out of alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Act, a California statute which prohibits retailers from collecting customer ZIP code information as a purported requirement of credit card transactions. The court held that policy exclusions negated coverage.

In Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., …

Continue Reading

The Insurer Is In Control: California District Court Upholds Insurer’s Right To Control Settlement and Conduct Its Due Diligence with Respect To a Coverage Investigation

In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. Kaufman & Broad Monterey Bay, Inc., 2015 WL 581528 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015), Travelers had issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Norcraft. The defendants were named as additional insureds on the policies. The defendants were sued for claims arising out of a residential development project. The defendants tendered their defense of the claims to Travelers, which accepted the tender and appointed counsel for the defendants. Travelers and the defendants asserted claims against each other …

Continue Reading

Californians – “Insurance on My Mind”

California voters had insurance on their minds during the mid-term elections with at least two insurance-related questions on the ballot.

The first was Proposition 45, entitled the “Healthcare Insurance. Rate Changes. Initiative Statute.”  If approved, this initiative would have required the state’s Insurance Commissioner to approve any rate increases for individual and small group health insurance plans before those rate hikes took effect.  If the state’s Insurance Commissioner determined that a rate hike was unreasonable or excessive, the commissioner could veto the hike.  The proposition’s …

Continue Reading

Insurers’ Goal Line Stand: California Coverage Action Stayed While New York Case Marches On

National Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.
(Cal. App. Ct. May 28, 2013)
A California appellate court recently affirmed a stay of California litigation commenced by the NFL against multiple insurers seeking coverage for traumatic brain injury cases. The court held that the NFL was not a California resident for purposes of a forum non conveniens analysis even though it has three teams in California.

The NFL administration and its intellectual property marketing arm were sued in multiple states by dozens of former players …

Continue Reading