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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance Co.green2 sentences2014Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1, 57 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 171 ].)]” (Safeco, at p. 1003.) However, the Safeco court noted the insured’s failure to comply with the notice or claims provisions will not excuse the insurer’s obligations under the policy “unless the insurer proves it was substantially prejudiced by the late notice. [Citations.] ‘Prejudice is not presumed from delayed notice alone. [Citations.] The insurer must show actual prejudice, not the mere possibility of prejudice.’ [(Quoting Shell Oil Co. v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. 2014Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1, 57 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 171 ].)]” (Safeco, at p. 1003.) However, the Safeco court noted the insured’s failure to comply with the notice or claims provisions will not excuse the insurer’s obligations under the policy “unless the insurer proves it was substantially prejudiced by the late notice. [Citations.] ‘Prejudice is not presumed from delayed notice alone. [Citations.] The insurer must show actual prejudice, not the mere possibility of prejudice.’ [(Quoting Shell Oil Co. v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. | 3 | 3 |
Paulfrey v. Blue Chip Stampsgreen2 sentences2009Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 963, 977-978 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 36 ]; Paulfrey v. Blue Chip Stamps (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 187, 199-200 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 501 ] [insurer’s responsibility to investigate “would not arise unless and until” insured files claim or makes “good faith effort to comply with claims procedure . . . .”].) “[Without actual presentation of a claim by the insured in compliance with claims procedures contained in the policy, there is no duty imposed on the insurer to investigate the claim.” (California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. 2009Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 963, 977-978 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 36 ]; Paulfrey v. Blue Chip Stamps (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 187, 199-200 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 501 ] [insurer’s responsibility to investigate “would not arise unless and until” insured files claim or makes “good faith effort to comply with claims procedure . . . .”].) “[Without actual presentation of a claim by the insured in compliance with claims procedures contained in the policy, there is no duty imposed on the insurer to investigate the claim.” (California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. | 1 | 2 |
KPFF, Inc. v. California Union Insurancegreen2 sentences2009Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 963, 977-978 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 36 ]; Paulfrey v. Blue Chip Stamps (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 187, 199-200 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 501 ] [insurer’s responsibility to investigate “would not arise unless and until” insured files claim or makes “good faith effort to comply with claims procedure . . . .”].) “[Without actual presentation of a claim by the insured in compliance with claims procedures contained in the policy, there is no duty imposed on the insurer to investigate the claim.” (California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. 2009Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 963, 977-978 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 36 ]; Paulfrey v. Blue Chip Stamps (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 187, 199-200 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 501 ] [insurer’s responsibility to investigate “would not arise unless and until” insured files claim or makes “good faith effort to comply with claims procedure . . . .”].) “[Without actual presentation of a claim by the insured in compliance with claims procedures contained in the policy, there is no duty imposed on the insurer to investigate the claim.” (California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Parks
green
2 sentences2014Miller tendered her defense only under the Barnette policy and there was no evidence Safeco had actual knowledge of the [Evelyn] policy when it declined the defense." (Safeco, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at p. 1003 , fn. omitted.) The Safeco court, after noting the duty of good faith and fair dealing includes a duty on the part of the insurer to investigate claims submitted by its insured, specifically noted that the "duties, however, arise after the insured complies with the claims procedure described in the insurance policy. [Citations.] '[W]ithout actual presentation of a claim by the insured in 2014Miller tendered her defense only under the Barnette policy and there was no evidence Safeco had actual knowledge of the [Evelyn] policy when it declined the defense.” (Safeco, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at p. 1003 , fn. omitted.) The Safeco court, after noting the duty of good faith and fair dealing includes a duty on the part of the insurer to investigate claims submitted by its insured, specifically noted that the “duties, however, arise after the insured complies with the claims procedure described in the insurance policy. [Citations.] ‘[Wjithout actual presentation of a claim by the insured in | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Prudential-LMI Commercial Insurance v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2006Third, a doctrine of equitable tolling will further our policy of encouraging settlement between insurers and insureds, and will discourage unnecessary bad faith suits that are often the only recourse for indemnity if the insurer denies coverage after the limitation period has expired.” (Prudential-LMI, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 692 .) Fourth, “[e]quitable tolling is also consistent with the policies underlying the claim and limitation periods—e.g., the insurer is entitled to receive prompt notice of a claim and the insured is penalized for waiting too long after discovery to make a claim. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.