Last month, we reported on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Yahoo, Inc. v. National Union Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA involving coverage for claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”). The Court concluded: “A CGL insurance policy that provides coverage for “personal injury,” defined, in part, as “injury . . . arising out of . . . [o]ral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy,” can cover liability for violations of the right of seclusion if such coverage is consistent with the insured’s objectively reasonable expectations.
Continue ReadingYahoo! Case Update
A Reminder: He Who Hesitates May Be Lost
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in an unpublished decision in Chevron Env’t. Mgmt. Co. v. Env’t. Prot. Corp. (Chevron Env’t. Mgmt. Co.), No. 20-16206, 2022 WL 10966098 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2022) that an insurer’s attempt to intervene in an underlying action against its insured was untimely as the insurer received notice of its insured’s suspended status five months before plaintiff obtained an $18 million default judgment against the insured.
Continue ReadingCALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ISSUES LANDMARK RULING AFFECTING CGL INSURERS
On November 17, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Yahoo, Inc. v. National Union Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. This landmark decision affecting CGL insurers holds that class action complaints alleging violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 42 U.S.C. § 227, are covered under a CGL policy’s “personal and advertising injury” coverage applicable to injury arising from the offense of “[o]ral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.”
Continue ReadingCalifornia Appellate Court Enforces “Catch-All” Language in Exclusion
A recent California appellate court decision held that a broad “catch-all” provision in an exclusionary endorsement to an insurance policy applied to bar coverage for all claims asserted in an underlying lawsuit, even though the lawsuit was a “mixed” action containing some otherwise covered claims.
Continue ReadingIntentional Conduct Is Not An “Accident” Despite Insured’s Mistaken Belief
In Ghukasian v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, 2022 WL 1421511 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 2022), the California Court of Appeal recently confirmed that, under established California law, an intentional action by an insured is not an “accident” even if the insured believed it had the legal right to take that action.
Continue ReadingSection 533 Bars Coverage for Successor’s Liability
In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. ConAgra Grocery Prod. Co., 2022 WL 1164981 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2022), the California Court of Appeal rejected an insured’s attempt to foist onto its insurers a $102 million lead abatement settlement that followed from an underlying class action judgment.
Continue ReadingCALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT HOLDS THAT A LIABILITY INSURER’S FAILURE TO ACCEPT A REASONABLE SETTLEMENT OFFER WITHIN LIMITS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE BAD FAITH PER SE
On March 8, 2021, a California appellate court reversed a $9.935 million bad faith verdict against an insurer by drawing[…]
Continue ReadingThe “Totality of the Circumstances” Determine Whether the Defendant Broker Owed a Heightened Duty of Care to Plaintiff Copy
In Murray v. UPS Capital Ins. Agency (Sept. 11, 2020) 2020 WL 5508039, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed[…]
Continue ReadingNinth Circuit Limits Rights of Excess Insurers to Contest Underlying Exhaustion
This week, the Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals addressed an issue of first impression in the[…]
Continue ReadingSummary Judgment for Insurer on Bad Faith Claim, Among Others, Reversed Where Trial Court Failed to Look Past an Arguably Reasonable Denial of Coverage and Determine Whether the Insurer Fairly Evaluated its Insureds’ Claim for Policy Benefits
In Ghazarian, et al. v. Magellan Health, Inc., et al., __ Cal.Rptr.3d __, 2020 WL 4558915 (as modified on denial[…]
Continue Reading