Blog

Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company

Posted by Christopher Kendrick- Haight on Nov 26th 2019

Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company
In Kanovsky v. At Your Door Self Storage (No. B297338; filed 11/25/19), a California appeals court held that a waiver of liability and agreement to self-insure in a storage container contract barred coverage for water damage to goods stored in the container.In Kanovsky, plaintiffs contracted for portable storage containers when moving. They loaded their washing machine into one of the containers without checking whether it was fully drained. They locked the containers and reopened them four year
Read more

No Duty to Defend Claims of Retailer’s Own Negligent Mislabeling Under Supplier’s Indemnity Agreement or Vendor’s Endorsement

Posted by Christopher Kendrick- Haight on Oct 11th 2019

No Duty to Defend Claims of Retailer’s Own Negligent Mislabeling Under Supplier’s Indemnity Agreement or Vendor’s Endorsement
In Target Corporation v. Golden State Ins. Co. Limited (No. B279995, filed 10/10/19), a California appeals court held that there was no duty to defend or indemnify a retail pharmacy against allegations that it had mislabeled a prescription drug under either a contractual indemnity clause with the drug’s bulk supplier or a vendor’s additional insured endorsement on the supplier’s liability policy.A customer purchased the drug from a Target store pharmacy and had a severe adverse reaction. The pha
Read more

Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

Posted by Christopher Kendrick- Haight on Jul 29th 2019

Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage
In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor.McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as
Read more

Insurer Not Required to Pay Twice When Contractor Cashes Jointly Payable Check Under Authority Granted in Construction Contract

Posted by Christopher Kendrick, Valerie A. Moore on Jul 29th 2019

Insurer Not Required to Pay Twice When Contractor Cashes Jointly Payable Check Under Authority Granted in Construction Contract
In Jozefowicz v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. G055643, filed 5/28/19), a California appeals court held that Allstate was not required to pay the insured where his contractor negotiated a jointly payable check under a lost or stolen check provision of the Commercial Code, because the insured’s construction contract had authorized the contractor to cash the check, which negated a requirement for application of the statute.In Jozefowicz, the insured entered a construction contract that contained a term a
Read more

Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Penalties for Broker’s Fees, Which Constituted Premiums in Excess of Approved Rates

Posted by Valerie A. Moore- Haight on Jul 29th 2019

Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Penalties for Broker’s Fees, Which Constituted Premiums in Excess of Approved Rates
In Mercury Insurance Co. v. Lara (No. G054496, filed 5/7/19), a California appeals court ruled that the California Insurance Commissioner had the authority to impose penalties of $27,593,550 against Mercury Insurance Company for fees charged by brokers issuing its policies, because the brokers were de facto agents of the insurer, and the fees constituted premium in excess of the insurer’s approved rate.Under insurance regulations, an insurance broker can charge a fee for services, but an agent c
Read more