Source: https://ceb.com/california-automobile-insurance-law-guide
Timestamp: 2019-02-20 01:38:11
Document Index: 282314388

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§2', '§4', '§10', '§8', '§11']

Add OnLAW to print TO94200(40)
The current update includes changes throughout this publication that reflect recent developments in case law, legislation, court rules, and jury instructions. Summarized below are some of the more important developments included in this update since publication of the 2016 update.
Accident. In Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v Moorefield Constr., Inc. (2016) 6 CA5th 1258, the court defined an accident as “an unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned happening or consequence from either a known or an unknown cause.” See §2.42.
Occurrence. For a recent case discussing the distinction between an “occurrence” and the resulting “bodily injury or property damage” and how “bodily injury or property damage” must occur during the policy period for coverage to exist, see Tidwell Enters., Inc. v Financial Pac. Ins. Co. (2016) 6 CA5th 100, discussed in §2.44.
Regular use. In Medina v GEICO Indem. Co. (2017) 8 CA5th 251, the court found that a company van was a nonowned vehicle because it was furnished for regular use by the employee even though she was a permissive user at the time of the accident. See §4.12.
Punitive damages. For two recent cases discussing punitive damages, see Bigler-Engler v Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 CA5th 276 (defendant’s low degree of reprehensibility and relatively low harm suffered by plaintiff, coupled with jury overestimating defendant’s net worth, required reduction in punitive damages award) and Nickerson v Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (2016) 5 CA5th 1 (10:1 ratio was constitutional given high level of reprehensibility; $35,000 in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages), both discussed in §10.35.
Cancellation. In Mills v AAA N. Cal., Nev. & Utah Ins. Exch. (2016) 3 CA5th 528, an insurer canceled a policy after the insured failed to respond to a written request to either complete the form to exclude his son from the policy or call the insurer to add him to the policy. See §8.7.
Other insurance. If one insurer is a specific excess insurer and the other is a general excess insurer, the court may find that the specific excess policy attaches before the general excess policy. See Advent, Inc. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. (2016) 6 CA5th 443 in §11.4.
Ralph A. Lombardi is a partner in the Oakland firm of Lombardi, Loper & Conant, LLP, where his practice emphasis is in the areas of insurance coverage and bad faith, medical and legal malpractice, and product liability. He has tried over 50 civil cases to verdict or judgment, including cases involving catastrophic injury, wrongful death, crashworthiness, design defect, and insurance bad faith. Mr. Lombardi received his A.B. from the University of California at Berkeley in 1967 and his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 1970. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and of the International Society of Barristers. He is also a past President of the San Francisco chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) and a current member of the ABOTA national board of directors, a past director of the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California, and a member of the International Association of Defense Counsel and of the Association of Defense Trial Attorneys. Mr. Lombardi is listed in the 2006–2012 editions of The Best Lawyers in America.
About the 2017 Update Author
RALPH A. LOMBARDI is a partner in the Oakland firm of Lombardi, Loper & Conant, LLP, where his practice emphasis is in the areas of insurance coverage and bad faith, medical and legal malpractice, and product liability. Mr. Lombardi received his A.B. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1967 and his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 1970. He is the author of this book.