Blog

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

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

September 28, 2018 In Jones v. IDS Property Casualty Ins. Co. (No. C084065, filed 9/25/18), a California appeals court found that while there is a split of authority in the case law, under the insurer’s applicable policy wording a wife’s claim for loss of consortium was subject to the same per person limit of the defendant’s insurance policy as her husband’s claim for bodily injury.In Jones, the insured was sued for an auto accident, and stipulated to a judgment of $1.35 million for the other d

In Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc. (8/30/2018 No. S232946), the California Supreme Court held that the conflict of interest of the law firm (“Sheppard Mullin”) rendered its engagement agreement, including an arbitration provision, with its client (“J-M”) unenforceable because the agreement violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”). Although the agreement included an “advance” conflict waiver, the Court deemed it ineffective because She

n Sveen v. Melin (No. 16-1432, filed June 11, 2018) (“Sveen”), the United States Supreme Court held that a statute which automatically revoked life insurance beneficiary designations following the policyholder’s divorce did not violate the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. (U.S. Const. Art. I § 10, cl. 1.)In 2002, the Minnesota Legislature passed a statute that automatically revokes the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of life insurance policy if the policy is purchas