Blog

Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Penalties Apply to Insurer that Defends Action in Name of Insured’s Estate Under Probate Code Section 550

Posted by Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on Mar 5th 2019

Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 Penalties Apply to Insurer that Defends Action in Name of Insured’s Estate Under Probate Code Section 550
In Meleski v. Estate of Hotlen (No. C080023, filed 11/29/18), a California appeals court held that an insurer is subject to the penalties for failure to accept a statutory offer to compromise under Code of Civil Procedure 998, even though the estate of its deceased insured is the named defendant in an action that the insurer defends under Probate Code sections 550, et seq.In Meleski, the insured was at fault in an accident, but died before suit was filed. The complaint named his estate, although
Read more

Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured

Posted by Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on Mar 5th 2019

Insurer Prohibited from Bringing Separate Contribution Action in Subrogation to Rights of Suspended Insured
December 4, 2018In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of Amer. v. Engel Insulation, Inc. (No. C085753, filed 11/30/18), a California appeals court held that an insurer may not file its own action to assert claims solely as a subrogee of a suspended corporation, where the corporation could not otherwise assert the claims on its own behalf.In Engel, a homeowners association filed a construction defect action against the developer, Westlake. Travelers defended Westlake as an additional insured on the
Read more

Insurer Barred From Enforcing Policy's Declining Limits Provision Due to Incomplete Discovery Disclosure in Defense of Tort Claim

Posted by Aronberg Goldgehn on Mar 5th 2019

Insurer Barred From Enforcing Policy's Declining Limits Provision Due to Incomplete Discovery Disclosure in Defense of Tort Claim
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois recently held an insurer responsible for payment of its original liability limits, disregarding policy language clearly requiring reduction of limits through payment of defense expenses. The court held that the insurer was estopped from enforcing the policy’s “declining limits” provision because defense counsel retained by the insurer provided what the court believed was an inaccurate identification of policy limits during discovery i
Read more

Oregon Case Updates and Welcome New Attorneys

Posted by Matt Ukishima on Mar 5th 2019

From the Desk of Matt Ukishima: Oregon limits the timeframe for initiating a product liability civil action for personal injury or property damage to ten years from the date of purchase (statute of ultimate repose). In cases where the product was manufactured in a different state with a longer statute of repose, plaintiffs may sue in Oregon and get the benefit of the longer limitations period. But, what happens if the manufacturing state has no statute of repose for product liability claims? Rea
Read more

Genuine Dispute Over Workers' Compensation Reduction From Uninsured Motorist Benefits Negates Bad Faith

Posted by Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on Mar 5th 2019

Genuine Dispute Over Workers' Compensation Reduction From Uninsured Motorist Benefits Negates Bad Faith
December 20th, 2018 In Case v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Inc. (No. B281732, filed 11/21/18, ord. pub. 12/18/18), a California appeals court held that the allowable reduction from uninsured motorist (UM) benefits for “payable” workers’ compensation benefits meant “eligible,” whether the insured sought the benefits or not. As a result, the court found that a genuine dispute over resolution of the insured’s workers’ compensation claim negated a claim for bad faith delay in payment
Read more