TRY ME!
Insurance Bad Faith Expansion
Summary
Royal Globe Ins. Co. V. Superior Court expanded insurer bad faith to include patterns of conduct and corporate policies. Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. Clarified liability for insurer staff. Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. Emphasized answering discovery requests if reasonably understood. Various cases highlight the relevance of underwriting files, claims manuals, and prior complaints in bad faith cases. California Code of Civil Procedure mandates specific responses to document requests and interrogatories. Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and Suarez v. Life Ins. Co. Of North America stress the importance of clear policy exceptions and the role of advertising in shaping insured expectations. Kurtz, Richards, Wilson & Co. V. Insurance Communicators Marketing Corp. Addressed pre-policy sales representations.Full Conversation
True or False: • The case of Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. (*) determined that insurer staff cannot be held personally liable for bad faith, but they may be liable for conduct that leads to Tort and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) or independent wrongful acts
True. In Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. (*), the court held that insurer staff cannot be held personally liable for bad faith. However, they may be liable for conduct that leads to torts like intentional infliction of emotional distress or for independent wrongful acts.
Did Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Company (*) * Cal.App.4th *, * establish If a discovery request can be understood, it must be answered to the extent it can reasonably be understood.
Yes, Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Company (*) * Cal.App.4th *, *, established that if a discovery request can be reasonably understood, it must be answered to that extent. This emphasizes the obligation to provide responses to discovery requests even if they are not perfectly clear, as long as they can be reasonably interpreted.
True or False: Defendant is unable to admit or deny this Request as phrased "Admit that YOU are not a California resident insurer as that term is used in California Insurance
Code § *."
True. If a defendant finds the phrasing of a request unclear or ambiguous, they may state they are unable to admit or deny it due to its phrasing. This aligns with the idea from Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co., where a discovery request must be answered if it can be reasonably understood. However, if it's not clear enough, the defendant can state their inability to respond.
True or False: The underwriting file is directly relevant to the parties’ understandings and expectations when the policy was issued. (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.3d *, *, fn. *.)
True. The underwriting file is considered directly relevant to the parties' understandings and expectations when the policy was issued, as established in Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (*).
True or False: Documents defining the contractual and business relationship between Sutton and its claims administrator, Bamboo, are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of agency and alter ego, and to Sutton’s non-delegable duty to act in good faith. (Hughes v. Blue Cross of Northern California (*) * Cal.App.3d *, *-*.)
Case Rating: *
True. The documents defining the contractual and business relationship between Sutton and its claims administrator, Bamboo, are directly relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims of agency and alter ego, and to Sutton’s non-delegable duty to act in good faith, as established in Hughes v. Blue Cross of Northern California (*).
True. The documents defining the contractual and business relationship between Sutton and its claims administrator, Bamboo, are directly relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims of agency and alter ego, and to Sutton’s non-delegable duty to act in good faith, as established in Hughes v. Blue Cross of Northern California (*).
True or False: An insurer’s claims manuals are “unquestionably relevant” in a bad faith case because they show the insurer’s internal standards for handling claims, against which its conduct in the plaintiff’s case can be measured. (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.App.4th *, *-*.)
Case Rating: *
True. In Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (*), an insurer’s claims manuals are deemed “unquestionably relevant” in bad faith cases as they reflect the insurer’s internal standards for handling claims, providing a benchmark to measure their conduct in the plaintiff’s case.
True. In Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (*), an insurer’s claims manuals are deemed “unquestionably relevant” in bad faith cases as they reflect the insurer’s internal standards for handling claims, providing a benchmark to measure their conduct in the plaintiff’s case.
True or False: Evidence of prior similar complaints is discoverable to show that the insurer’s conduct was part of a pattern or practice, which is relevant to proving malice, oppression, and fraud for purposes of punitive damages. (Moore v. American United Life Ins. Co. (*) * Cal.App.3d *, *.)
Case Rating: *
True. Evidence of prior similar complaints is discoverable to show that an insurer's conduct was part of a pattern or practice, relevant to proving malice, oppression, and fraud for purposes of punitive damages, as established in Moore v. American United Life Ins. Co. (*).
True. Evidence of prior similar complaints is discoverable to show that an insurer's conduct was part of a pattern or practice, relevant to proving malice, oppression, and fraud for purposes of punitive damages, as established in Moore v. American United Life Ins. Co. (*).
True or False: When such information is relevant, it must be produced, subject to an appropriate protective order. (Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (*) * Cal.App.4th *, *.)
True. In Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (*), it was established that when information is relevant, it must be produced, subject to an appropriate protective order. This ensures that necessary information is available while protecting sensitive data.
True or False: Doppes v. Bentley Motors (*) * Cal.App.4th * (a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel when the moving party has shown that the responses are incomplete constitutes an abuse of discretion) ?
True. In Doppes v. Bentley Motors (*), the court found that denying a motion to compel when the moving party shows the responses are incomplete can constitute an abuse of discretion. This emphasizes the obligation of the court to ensure full and complete discovery responses.
Case Rating: *
Case Rating: *
True or False: Requests for Admission – CCP § *.*(b) requires that, absent a timely and substantially compliant response, the requesting party may move to have the matters deemed admitted. The Court shall grant such a motion unless a substantially compliant response is served before the hearing.
Case Rating: *
True. California Code of Civil Procedure § *.*(b) allows the requesting party to move to have matters deemed admitted if a timely and substantially compliant response is not received. The court must grant the motion unless a substantially compliant response is served before the hearing.
True. California Code of Civil Procedure § *.*(b) allows the requesting party to move to have matters deemed admitted if a timely and substantially compliant response is not received. The court must grant the motion unless a substantially compliant response is served before the hearing.
If "Requests for Admission – CCP § *.*(b) requires that, absent a timely and substantially compliant response, the requesting party may move to have the matters deemed admitted. The Court shall grant such a motion unless a substantially compliant response is served before the hearing. " then What's a relevant Special interrogatory defined?
Case Rating: *
In the context of CCP § *.*(b), a relevant Special Interrogatory could be:
"Please state all reasons why you believe your response to Request for Admission No. [specific number] is timely and substantially compliant as per CCP § *.*(b)."
This interrogatory seeks to understand the basis on which the responding party believes their response meets the standards outlined in the code.
In the context of CCP § *.*(b), a relevant Special Interrogatory could be:
"Please state all reasons why you believe your response to Request for Admission No. [specific number] is timely and substantially compliant as per CCP § *.*(b)."
This interrogatory seeks to understand the basis on which the responding party believes their response meets the standards outlined in the code.
True or False: *. Requests for Production – CCP §§ *.*(c) and *.*(c) mandate that a party either produce the documents or state a specific objection (e.g., privilege, work product) and provide a privilege log. Blanket refusals are not permissible.
Case Rating: *
True. Under California's Code of Civil Procedure §§ *.*(c) and *.*(c), a party must either produce the requested documents or state a specific objection, such as privilege or work product, and typically provide a privilege log. Blanket refusals are generally not permissible.
True. Under California's Code of Civil Procedure §§ *.*(c) and *.*(c), a party must either produce the requested documents or state a specific objection, such as privilege or work product, and typically provide a privilege log. Blanket refusals are generally not permissible.
what is *.*(c)
Case Rating: *
California Code of Civil Procedure § *.*(c) pertains to motions to compel further responses to requests for production of documents. It requires that, if a response to a document request is inadequate, the requesting party may file a motion to compel. The responding party must produce the documents or state specific objections with a privilege log if applicable.
California Code of Civil Procedure § *.*(c) pertains to motions to compel further responses to requests for production of documents. It requires that, if a response to a document request is inadequate, the requesting party may file a motion to compel. The responding party must produce the documents or state specific objections with a privilege log if applicable.
What is *.*(c)
Case Rating: *
California Code of Civil Procedure § *.*(c) deals with motions to compel further responses to interrogatories. It mandates that if a response to interrogatories is inadequate, the requesting party can file a motion to compel further answers. The responding party must provide complete responses or state specific objections.
California Code of Civil Procedure § *.*(c) deals with motions to compel further responses to interrogatories. It mandates that if a response to interrogatories is inadequate, the requesting party can file a motion to compel further answers. The responding party must provide complete responses or state specific objections.
True or false: Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, * Cal.4th * (*) established The California Supreme Court considered a policy limiting coverage for “permissive users” and said that coverage exceptions must be “conspicuous, plain and clear.”
Case Rating: *
True. In Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, * Cal.4th * (*), the California Supreme Court held that coverage exceptions must be "conspicuous, plain and clear," especially when limiting coverage for "permissive users."
True. In Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, * Cal.4th * (*), the California Supreme Court held that coverage exceptions must be "conspicuous, plain and clear," especially when limiting coverage for "permissive users."
Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, * Cal.4th * (*) established The California Supreme Court considered a policy limiting coverage for “permissive users” and said that coverage exceptions must be “conspicuous, plain and clear.” Importantly, the court cited insurer advertisements (billboards, web sites) when discussing what a “reasonable insured” would expect. The court indicated that marketing / advertising may be relevant to policy interpretation and the insured’s expectations.
It seems like you're exploring the implications of Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and other related cases. If you have any specific questions or need clarification on legal aspects or the impact of the case, feel free to ask! What aspect of this case or other insurance-related legal issues are you interested in discussing further?
True or False: Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, * Cal.4th * (*) established The California Supreme Court considered a policy limiting coverage for “permissive users” and said that coverage exceptions must be “conspicuous, plain and clear.” Importantly, the court cited insurer advertisements (billboards, web sites) when discussing what a “reasonable insured” would expect. The court indicated that marketing / advertising may be relevant to policy interpretation and the insured’s expectations.
Case Rating: *
True. Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, * Cal.4th * (*) established that coverage exceptions must be "conspicuous, plain and clear." The court did consider insurer advertisements, indicating that marketing may be relevant to policy interpretation and insured's expectations.
True. Haynes v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, * Cal.4th * (*) established that coverage exceptions must be "conspicuous, plain and clear." The court did consider insurer advertisements, indicating that marketing may be relevant to policy interpretation and insured's expectations.
True or False: In Suarez v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, * Cal.App.3d * (*) The Court of Appeal held that advertising and brochures issued by the insurer are relevant in determining a purchaser’s reasonable expectations. The court stated: “The insurer should be bound by the expectations it has created … it may be required to provide coverage according to its advertising, despite more restrictive provisions in the policy.”
Case Rating: *
True. In Suarez v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, * Cal.App.3d * (*), the Court of Appeal held that advertising and brochures issued by the insurer are relevant in determining a purchaser's reasonable expectations. The court stated that the insurer should be bound by the expectations it has created and may be required to provide coverage according to its advertising, despite more restrictive provisions in the policy.
True. In Suarez v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, * Cal.App.3d * (*), the Court of Appeal held that advertising and brochures issued by the insurer are relevant in determining a purchaser's reasonable expectations. The court stated that the insurer should be bound by the expectations it has created and may be required to provide coverage according to its advertising, despite more restrictive provisions in the policy.
True or False: Kurtz, Richards, Wilson & Co. v. Insurance Communicators Marketing Corp., * Cal.App.4th * (*) established that pre-policy sales representations and marketing (by agents) are actionable in California. The court recognized that if an agent misrepresents “material facts in an application,” the agent and insurer may be liable.
True. Kurtz, Richards, Wilson & Co. v. Insurance Communicators Marketing Corp., * Cal.App.4th * (*) established that pre-policy sales representations and marketing by agents are actionable in California. The court recognized liability for agents and insurers if they misrepresent material facts in an application.
True or False: Hodgson v. Banner Life Insurance Co., * WL (Cal. Ct. App.) establish that resolve the ambiguity in a way consistent with what a reasonable applicant would have expected.
Case Rating: *
False. Hodgson v. Banner Life Insurance Co., * WL (Cal. Ct. App.) does not establish that ambiguities should be resolved in a way consistent with what a reasonable applicant would have expected. This principle is more commonly associated with contract interpretation or other specific cases.
False. Hodgson v. Banner Life Insurance Co., * WL (Cal. Ct. App.) does not establish that ambiguities should be resolved in a way consistent with what a reasonable applicant would have expected. This principle is more commonly associated with contract interpretation or other specific cases.
What is demurer?
Case Rating: *
A demurrer is a legal objection that challenges the legal sufficiency of a claim or complaint, without addressing the facts. In essence, it argues that even if the facts presented are true, they do not constitute a valid legal claim.
A demurrer is a legal objection that challenges the legal sufficiency of a claim or complaint, without addressing the facts. In essence, it argues that even if the facts presented are true, they do not constitute a valid legal claim.
what should be focus of opposition to demurer?
Case Rating: *
When opposing a demurrer, focus on these key areas:
- Legal Sufficiency: Argue that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
- Factual Allegations: Highlight specific factual allegations that support each element of the claim.
- Legal Arguments: Counter the demurrer's legal arguments with relevant case law and statutes.
- Amendment: If possible, argue that any deficiencies can be cured by amending the complaint.
Is there a specific element or claim you're dealing with that you need more details on?
When opposing a demurrer, focus on these key areas:
- Legal Sufficiency: Argue that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
- Factual Allegations: Highlight specific factual allegations that support each element of the claim.
- Legal Arguments: Counter the demurrer's legal arguments with relevant case law and statutes.
- Amendment: If possible, argue that any deficiencies can be cured by amending the complaint.
Is there a specific element or claim you're dealing with that you need more details on?
If demurer hearing is scheduled on December *, * what's the last date for plaintiff to file opposition?
Case Rating: *
In New York, opposition papers for a motion, including a demurrer, typically need to be filed at least two days before the hearing date. However, local rules or specific court instructions may vary, so it's important to check with the court handling your case.
In New York, opposition papers for a motion, including a demurrer, typically need to be filed at least two days before the hearing date. However, local rules or specific court instructions may vary, so it's important to check with the court handling your case.
In California if demurer hearing is scheduled on December *, * what's the last date for plaintiff to file opposition?
Case Rating: *
In California, opposition to a demurrer must typically be filed at least nine court days before the hearing. Be sure to verify with the local court rules or consult with the court clerk for any specific instructions that might apply to your case.
In California, opposition to a demurrer must typically be filed at least nine court days before the hearing. Be sure to verify with the local court rules or consult with the court clerk for any specific instructions that might apply to your case.
Start a new chat