Lawrence Moon

Subscribe to all posts by Lawrence Moon

State Supreme Court asked to Resolve Conflicting State Insurance Laws – T-Mobile USA v. Selective Insurance: Take Two

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Washington State Supreme Court to resolve a conflict between two Washington state insurance law principles, namely, the conflict between (1) the rule that an insurance company is bound by representations made by its authorized agents, and (2) the rule that certificates of insurance cannot … Continue Reading

California Passes Law Requiring Insurance Companies Take Specific Measures To Periodically Review The Estimated Replacement Cost Of Structures Insured Under Residential Property Insurance Policies

Last month, California passed legislation that requires residential property insurers to take specific measures to review the estimated cost of rebuilding or repairing structures insured under residential property insurance policies. Assembly Bill 1797 added section 10103.4 to California’s Insurance Code. With certain, limited exceptions, under the new statute, residential property insurers must, at least biennially, … Continue Reading

California Department of Insurance Issues Opinion That Underwriting Rules Submitted By Carriers Are Public Information

Under California Insurance Code section 1861.05(b), most property and casualty insurers seeking a rate change must submit an application that includes various financial information and “such other information as the commissioner may require,” including what the Department of Insurance describes as “underwriting rules.” “Underwriting rules” are “any rule or factor used by an insurer in … Continue Reading

Bad Faith Claim Investigation May Subject Insurance Company to Private Remedies Under Consumer Protection Law

Last month, a New York Supreme Court affirmed that insurance companies are subject to that state’s consumer protection law, General Business Law § 349. In 37 West 24th Street, LLC v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc., the trial court denied Seneca Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim under that statute.1… Continue Reading

Individual Insurance Adjusters in Washington May Be Personally Liable for Statutory Bad Faith As Well As Violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act

Last month, a Washington State Court of Appeals ruled that individual insurance adjusters may be personally liable for violations of Washington’s bad faith statute, RCW 48.01.030. The court also ruled that adjusters may be personally liable for violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.020.1… Continue Reading

Proposed Statutes Regarding Assignment of Insurance Benefits Withdrawn From Consideration By Florida Legislature

A handful of bills regarding proposed statutes concerning assignment of property insurance benefits were withdrawn from both houses of the Florida legislature this month. Each of the proposed laws were directed toward assignments entered into by property owners in exchange for the agreement of the assignee — typically a contractor — to complete the associated … Continue Reading

Can Your Insurance Company Change Its Position Regarding Coverage For Your Claim?

Answer: It depends, on several factors, such as: The applicable state law, the insurance company’s prior position, or positions (e.g., did it accept or deny coverage?), how it expressed that position, or positions (e.g., did it accept coverage under a reservation of rights, or did it deny coverage based on a specific ground and reserve … Continue Reading

Department of Insurance Bulletin Provides Notice to Insurance Companies and Useful Information for Wildfire Victims

Last month, the California Department of Insurance issued a notice to insurance companies, insurance agents, and public adjusters regarding the recent wildfires in the state. Although the notice is directed to insurance companies, agents, and adjusters, it provides useful information for policyholders affected by the wildfires. According to the Department of Insurance press release discussing … Continue Reading

Post-loss Assignment of Claims in California

In a prior blog, I discussed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court,1 regarding the post-loss assignment of insurance benefits. In Fluor, the California Supreme Court held that section 520 of California’s Insurance Code prohibits insurance companies from refusing to honor post-loss assignments of benefits, regardless of whether the assigned benefits … Continue Reading

Assignment of Contingent Benefits in Arizona

In prior blog posts on assignment of contingent benefits, I discussed the distinction between assignments of contingent benefits and assignments of noncontingent benefits under a property insurance policy. For the purpose of this post, a contingent benefit is a benefit or payment that is either not yet fixed in amount or regarding which the carrier … Continue Reading

Assignment of Contingent Benefits in California

In Assignment of Unaccrued or Contingent Benefits, I discussed the distinction between assignments of Contingent Benefits and assignments of Noncontingent Benefits under a property insurance policy. For purposes of this blog, a Contingent Benefit is a benefit or payment that is either not yet fixed in amount or the carrier is not yet obligated to … Continue Reading

Assignment of Unaccrued or Contingent Benefits

It is widely accepted that insurance policies are generally not assignable by the policyholder unless the insurance company consents to the assignment. In most states, it is also well-established that after a covered loss has occurred, the policyholder ordinarily may assign the claim to another person or entity, even if the policy contains a clause … Continue Reading
LexBlog