Cal. Codes » Insurance Code / DIVISION 1. GENERAL RULES GOVERNING INSURANCE / PART 1. THE CONTRACT / CHAPTER 4. The Policy / ARTICLE 1. Definition and Scope
California Codes

Cal. Insurance Code § 381 (2026)

Definition and Scope

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A policy shall specify:

(a)The parties between whom the contract is made.

(b)The property or life insured.

(c)The interest of the insured in property insured, if he is not the absolute owner thereof.

(d)The risks insured against.

(e)The period during which the insurance is to continue.

(f)Either:

(1)A statement of the premium, or

(2)If the insurance is of a character where the exact premium is only determinable upon the termination of the contract, a statement of the basis and rates upon which the final premium is to be determined and paid.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Armstrong World Indus., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 45 Cal. App. 4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Armstrong World Indus., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 45 Cal. App. 4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). “A liability insurance policy has a finite duration.”
Groves v. City of Los Angeles, 256 P.2d 309 (Cal. 1953). · cites it 2× “Point is made of the requirement that every policy must set forth therein the premium (Ins. Code, § 381(f)) and the commissioner's rules require separation of "premium" and fees in the bail agent's record.”
Rodriquez v. RWA Trucking Co., 80 Cal. Comp. Cases 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “[ 1 ] Regardless whether charge-backs for insurance might be permitted, RWA must comply with the law in making any such charge-backs, such as complying with California Insurance Code § 381.” Based on these findings, the court found that RWA violated the “unlawful” prong of…”
Nellis v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 2012 NMCA 20 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “Troyk examined whether the service charges constituted “premium” under California’s statutory scheme, specifically Cal. Ins. Code § 381 (f) (2005)—the California counterpart to Section 59A-18-3—and concluded that the Prematic service charges were premium under the statute.”
Russell v. Williams, 374 P.2d 827 (Cal. 1962). “It may not be assumed that the policy in question covered the plaintiff’s interest. Under the statutes of this state a fire insurance policy must specify the “interest of the insured in property insured, if he is not the absolute owner thereof” (Ins.”
Nat'l Am. Ins. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 93 F.3d 529 (9th Cir. 1996). “See Cal. Ins. Code § 381 . 11 Since the Underwriters produced no contradictory evidence, the district court correctly determined that they failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence or the terms of LC 58392.”
Rand v. Am. Nat'l Ins., 717 F. Supp. 2d 948 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “Therefore, it requires an express statement in an insurance policy of the premium charged by an insurer and does so presumably to protect consumers from confusion regarding the premium charged and to discourage insurers from misleading consumers regarding the amount of premium…”
Sec. Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Meyling, 954 F. Supp. 1421 (E.D. Cal. 1997). “ERISA Preemption of Plaintiffs Rescission Claim Security bases its claim for rescission on Cal.Ins.Code §§ 381, 359 and 10380. These provisions allow an insurer to rescind insurance coverage when the insured conceals or misrepresents material facts, either intentionally or…”
Nellis v. Farmers Ins., 2012 NMCA 020 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “Troyk examined whether the service charges constituted “premium” under California’s statutory scheme, specifically Cal. Ins. Code § 381 (f) (2005) — the California counterpart to Section 59A-18-3 — and concluded that the Prematic service charges were premium under the statute.”
Rodriguez v. RWA Trucking Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “[1] Regardless whether charge-backs for insurance might be permitted, RWA must comply with the law in making any such charge-backs, such as complying with California Insurance Code § 381.” Based on these findings, the court found that RWA violated the “unlawful” prong of section…”
State Comp. Ins. Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). “ReadyLink's affirmative defenses to SCIF's complaint include estoppel, ratification, fraud, unclean hands, waiver, and violation of Insurance Code section 381.21 21 Insurance Code section 381, subdivision (f) provides that an insurance policy shall specify "[e]ither: [¶] (1) A…”
Oshodin v. Fire Ins. Exch. CA2/4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). “” He added that it would be “impossible” and “illegal” under Insurance Code section 381 “for an insurance company to provide the coverage that the plaintiffs requested.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Cal. Insurance Code § 381(f): 3 cases
Groves v. City of Los Angeles, 256 P.2d 309 (Cal. 1953). “Point is made of the requirement that every policy must set forth therein the premium (Ins. Code, § 381(f)) and the commissioner's rules require separation of "premium" and fees in the bail agent's record.”
Rodriquez v. RWA Trucking Co., 80 Cal. Comp. Cases 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “[ 1 ] Regardless whether charge-backs for insurance might be permitted, RWA must comply with the law in making any such charge-backs, such as complying with California Insurance Code § 381.” Based on these findings, the court found that RWA violated the “unlawful” prong of…”
Rodriguez v. RWA Trucking Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “[1] Regardless whether charge-backs for insurance might be permitted, RWA must comply with the law in making any such charge-backs, such as complying with California Insurance Code § 381.” Based on these findings, the court found that RWA violated the “unlawful” prong of section…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.