Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 California opinions name it 3 courts 2007–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Corral v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen2 sentences2024Co. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 1004 (Corral)] for example, did not involve a petition to compel arbitration, but addressed whether the plaintiff’s bad faith action was barred by a prior arbitration award under principles of res judicata. ( Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1009–1010.) In Corral, unlike here, arbitration of the plaintiff’s UIM claim had already concluded. 2024Co. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 1004 (Corral)] for example, did not involve a petition to compel arbitration, but addressed whether the plaintiff’s bad faith action was barred by a prior arbitration award under principles of res judicata. ( Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1009–1010.) In Corral, unlike here, arbitration of the plaintiff’s UIM claim had already concluded. | 1 | 4 |
CHATEAU CHAMBERAY HOA v. Associated Internat. Ins. Co.green2 sentences2008Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 335, 347 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 776 ] (Chateau Chamberay) an insurer denying or delaying the payment of policy benefits due to the existence of a genuine dispute with its insured as to the amount of the claim cannot be liable in bad faith. 2008(See Wilson , at p. 723 [genuine dispute rule does not protect insurer who fails to fairly investigate and evaluate its insured’s claim]; Chateau Chamberay , at p. 348 [insured’s biased investigation claim should go to jury when insurer’s experts were unreasonable].) Brehm’s bad faith claim also differs from Wilson’s because 21st Century did not deny his UIM claim. | 1 | 1 |
Walbrook Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2008Co. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1454 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 513 ] [same].) 8 4. 21st Century’s Contractual Right to Arbitrate UIM Claims Does Not Relieve It from Its Obligation to Deal with Its Insured in Good Faith The 21st Century policy expressly grants the parties the right to arbitrate any dispute regarding a UM or UIM claim: “If we and a person insured do not agree as to whether he or she is legally entitled to recover damages from an Uninsured Motorist or the amount of such damages, then upon written demand of either, the disagreement shall be submitted to a single neutral Arbitrator for decisi 2008Co. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1454 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 513 ] [same].) 8 4. 21st Century’s Contractual Right to Arbitrate UIM Claims Does Not Relieve It from Its Obligation to Deal with Its Insured in Good Faith The 21st Century policy expressly grants the parties the right to arbitrate any dispute regarding a UM or UIM claim: “If we and a person insured do not agree as to whether he or she is legally entitled to recover damages from an Uninsured Motorist or the amount of such damages, then upon written demand of either, the disagreement shall be submitted to a single neutral Arbitrator for decisi | 1 | 1 |
Mariscal v. Old Republic Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2007Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1623 , 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 224 ; see also Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 847, 880 , 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 .) Applying these principles to the facts in the summary judgment record, we agree with the Court of Appeal that plaintiff has demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to whether 21st Century's decision to deny her UIM claim in July 2001 was made unreasonably and in bad faith. [4] Wilson complained of neck pain after the accident and in subsequent weeks and months. 2007Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1623 , 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 224 ; see also Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 847, 880 , 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 .) Applying these principles to the facts in the summary judgment record, we agree with the Court of Appeal that plaintiff has demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to whether 21st Century's decision to deny her UIM claim in July 2001 was made unreasonably and in bad faith. [4] Wilson complained of neck pain after the accident and in subsequent weeks and months. | 1 | 1 |
Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc.green2 sentences2007Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1623 , 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 224 ; see also Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 847, 880 , 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 .) Applying these principles to the facts in the summary judgment record, we agree with the Court of Appeal that plaintiff has demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to whether 21st Century's decision to deny her UIM claim in July 2001 was made unreasonably and in bad faith. [4] Wilson complained of neck pain after the accident and in subsequent weeks and months. 2007Co. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1617, 1623 , 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 224 ; see also Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 847, 880 , 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 .) Applying these principles to the facts in the summary judgment record, we agree with the Court of Appeal that plaintiff has demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to whether 21st Century's decision to deny her UIM claim in July 2001 was made unreasonably and in bad faith. [4] Wilson complained of neck pain after the accident and in subsequent weeks and months. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brehm v. 21st Century Insurance
green
2 sentences2023Co. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1242 , establishes that, although an insurer has an absolute right to demand arbitration when it fails to reach an agreement with the insured, “[a]n insurer’s duty to thoroughly investigate and fairly evaluate its insured’s UIM claim, so forcefully recognized in Wilson, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pages 720 to 723, has no meaning” unless there is also “an implied obligation to honestly assess [the insured’s] claim and to make a reasonable effort to resolve any dispute with him as to the amount of his damages before invoking that right.” We are not persuaded that the e 2021(See, e.g., Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at p. 1011 [plaintiff’s bad faith cause of action was not based on facts surrounding automobile accident nor policy provisions at issue in arbitration proceeding]; Brehm, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1242–1243 [defendant had “absolute” right to demand arbitration of value of UIM claim, but contractual right to resolve dispute by arbitration was not inconsistent with its implied obligation to attempt to reach agreement in good faith prior to arbitration].) But defendant here does not seek to arbitrate plaintiff’s bad faith claim. | 3 | 2016–2023 |
Hightower v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
2 sentences2016Exchange (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 853, 863 .) In Hightower, the court concluded that “the mere availability of an arbitration procedure does not insulate an insurer from liability for bad faith in its handling of an uninsured motorist claim.” (Hightower, at p. 862.) The court in Hightower noted that a contrary rule would allow an insurer to “‘stonewall’ uninsured motorist claimants in every case but avoid bad faith liability through the simple act of requesting arbitration and refusing to pay until ordered to do so by an arbitrator.” (Id. at p. 863.) The court in Brehm reached a similar conclusio 2016Exchange (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 853, 863 .) In Hightower, the court concluded that “the mere availability of an arbitration procedure does not insulate an insurer from liability for bad faith in its handling of an uninsured motorist claim.” (Hightower, at p. 862.) The court in Hightower noted that a contrary rule would allow an insurer to “‘stonewall’ uninsured motorist claimants in every case but avoid bad faith liability through the simple act of requesting arbitration and refusing to pay until ordered to do so by an arbitrator.” (Id. at p. 863.) The court in Brehm reached a similar conclusio | 2 | 2008–2016 |
Wilson v. 21st Century Insurance
green
1 sentence2023Co. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1242 , establishes that, although an insurer has an absolute right to demand arbitration when it fails to reach an agreement with the insured, “[a]n insurer’s duty to thoroughly investigate and fairly evaluate its insured’s UIM claim, so forcefully recognized in Wilson, supra, 42 Cal.4th at pages 720 to 723, has no meaning” unless there is also “an implied obligation to honestly assess [the insured’s] claim and to make a reasonable effort to resolve any dispute with him as to the amount of his damages before invoking that right.” We are not persuaded that the e | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Bouton v. USAA Casualty Insurance
green
2 sentences2021(Bouton, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1201 .) In the instant case, there is no dispute that plaintiff is an insured. 8 arbitrate all disputes concerning liability and damages arising out of an accident between insured and underinsured motorist].) Plaintiff contends that arbitration is inappropriate because his lawsuit was filed against defendant “for its tortious and bad faith conduct against him personally, not to resolve a UIM claim.” But neither plaintiff nor the trial court acknowledged that plaintiff’s complaint alleges defendant breached the contract by failing to pay damages due under the po 2021(Bouton, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1201 .) In the instant case, there is no dispute that plaintiff is an insured. 8 arbitrate all disputes concerning liability and damages arising out of an accident between insured and underinsured motorist].) Plaintiff contends that arbitration is inappropriate because his lawsuit was filed against defendant “for its tortious and bad faith conduct against him personally, not to resolve a UIM claim.” But neither plaintiff nor the trial court acknowledged that plaintiff’s complaint alleges defendant breached the contract by failing to pay damages due under the po | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck
green
2 sentences2018This result would undermine the Legislature's purpose in enacting a statute of limitations." ( Id . at p. 755, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 749 , 958 P.2d 1062 .) Gursey argues that the same reasoning applies here: "To hold that [plaintiffs'] damages did not arise until Jonathan settled his claims gives [plaintiffs] 'unilateral control' over the limitations period, because they decided when to file their claim against [the other driver], when to demand her policy limits, what conditions to place on her acceptance, when to file the UIM claim and when to demand the UIM limits. ... 2018This result would undermine the Legislature's purpose in enacting a statute of limitations." ( Id . at p. 755, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 749 , 958 P.2d 1062 .) Gursey argues that the same reasoning applies here: "To hold that [plaintiffs'] damages did not arise until Jonathan settled his claims gives [plaintiffs] 'unilateral control' over the limitations period, because they decided when to file their claim against [the other driver], when to demand her policy limits, what conditions to place on her acceptance, when to file the UIM claim and when to demand the UIM limits. ... | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Katherine Mazzaferro, Joanne Malec, and Ruth Glahn v. Rli Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2016Co. (2d Cir. 1995) 50 F.3d 137 , the Second Circuit also considered a UM/UIM claim under an umbrella liability policy that provided excess coverage over an underlying automobile liability policy that included such coverage. 2016To require that policy to furnish uninsured *739 motorist coverage would work a substantial revision of that policy.’ [Citation.]” (Mazzaferro, supra, 50 F.3d at p. 141 , quoting Hartbarger, supra, 437 N.E.2d at p. 694 .) We find the reasoning of the courts in these other jurisdictions to be persuasive and apply it here. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Brandt v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2016The attorney’s fees are an economic loss -- damages -- proximately caused by the tort. [Citation.]” (Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813, 817 .) 13 The parties in the instant case stipulated that Federici paid his attorney $35,000 for representing him in his UIM claim against IDS. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies
green
1 sentence2016Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 (Moradi-Shalal) as support for this argument. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hartbarger v. Country Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence2016To require that policy to furnish uninsured *739 motorist coverage would work a substantial revision of that policy.’ [Citation.]” (Mazzaferro, supra, 50 F.3d at p. 141 , quoting Hartbarger, supra, 437 N.E.2d at p. 694 .) We find the reasoning of the courts in these other jurisdictions to be persuasive and apply it here. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance
green
2 sentences2016(See, e.g., Maslo, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 637 ; Brehm, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1243-1244; Hightower v. Farmers Ins. 2016(See, e.g., Maslo, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 637 ; Brehm, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1243-1244; Hightower v. Farmers Ins. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.