(a)No policy of insurance shall provide, or be construed to provide, any coverage or indemnity for the payment of any fine, penalty, or restitution in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of, Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code by the Attorney General, any district attorney, any city prosecutor, or any county counsel, notwithstanding whether the exclusion or exception regarding this type of coverage or indemnity is expressly stated in the policy.
(b)No policy of insurance shall provide, or be construed to provide, any duty to defend, as defined in subdivision (c), any claim in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of, Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code in which the recovery of a fine, penalty, or restitution is sought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, any city prosecutor, or any county counsel, notwithstanding whether the exclusion or exception regarding the duty to defend this type of claim is expressly stated in the policy.
(c)For the purpose of this section, “duty to defend” means the insurer’s right or obligation to investigate, contest, defend, control the defense of, compromise, settle, negotiate the compromise or settlement of, or indemnify for the cost of any aspect of defending any claim in any criminal action or proceeding or in any action or proceeding brought pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of, or Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17500) of Part 3 of, Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code in which the insured expects or contends that (1) the insurer is liable or is potentially liable to make any payment on behalf of the insured or (2) the insurer will provide a defense for a claim even though the insurer is precluded by law from indemnifying that claim.
(d)Any provision in a policy of insurance which is in violation of subdivision (a) or (b) is contrary to public policy and void.
Notes of Decisions
Adir Int'l, LLC v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co, 994 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 20× “The panel held Cal. Ins. Code § 533.5 (b) did not facially violate the due process right of insurance holders to fund and retain the counsel of their choice in the civil context.”
Mt. Hawley Ins. v. Lopez, 215 Cal. App. 4th 1385 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Hawley argued that it had no duty to defend Lopez against the grand jury indictment “because any defense obligation is excluded by California Insurance Code section 533.5 (b).”
Axis Reinsurance Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 975 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2020).
“We do note, however, that the statute that barred insurance coverage for disgorgement in Bank of the West, California Insurance Code § 533.5, applies only to civil actions brought by the state attorney general, a district attorney, or a city prosecutor—not to actions, like the…”
Rizzo v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, 969 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
· cites it 3× “Nonetheless, the application of the “reasonable and necessary costs” rule to defense of the Criminal Actions would run afoul of Cal. Ins.Code § 533.5, which provides that “[n]o policy of insurance shall provide, or be construed to provide, any duty to defend, as defined in…”
Go v. McClaugherty CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 5× “Defendants further argued Insurance Code section 533.5—providing there is no insurance coverage for criminal restitution—barred Go’s causes of action.”
Bodell v. Walbrook Ins., 119 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 2× “See Cal. Insur. Code § 533.5 (b) & (d). Not only has the California Legislature specifically prohibited insurers from defending criminal proceedings, no California court has ever construed an insurance policy to cover criminal defenses, including federal criminal prosecutions.”
Ent. Indus. Dev. Corp. v. United States Liab. Ins., 254 F. App'x 586 (9th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “ion of Southern California (EIDC) argues that the district court’s dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) was improper because: (1) EIDC’s insurance policy obligated United States Liability Insurance Company (USLIC) to defend…”
— Cal. Insurance Code § 533.5(b) — 2 cases
Adir Int'l, LLC v. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co, 994 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2021).
“The panel held Cal. Ins. Code § 533.5 (b) did not facially violate the due process right of insurance holders to fund and retain the counsel of their choice in the civil context.”
Ent. Indus. Dev. Corp. v. United States Liab. Ins., 254 F. App'x 586 (9th Cir. 2007).
“ion of Southern California (EIDC) argues that the district court’s dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) was improper because: (1) EIDC’s insurance policy obligated United States Liability Insurance Company (USLIC) to defend…”
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.