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 2012–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People ex rel. Fire Insurance Exchange v. Anapol
green
2 sentences2021Again, the Anapol court held that the submission of an insurance claim is ordinarily not a protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, unless the defendant first establishes that litigation with the insurance company is under serious consideration and is more than theoretical. ( Anapol, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th 809 .) Here, it does not matter if Rubin’s lien patients were submitting insurance claims with Allstate based on their own coverage policies (first party claims), or if they were submitting insurance claims based on the liability policies of alleged tortfeasors (third party claims). 2020(Anapol, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 827 .) As such, it could not be determined “by the mere fact of submission of a claim,” that a claim had been submitted in serious contemplation of litigation. | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Beach v. Harco National Insurance
green
2 sentences2014Co. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 82 (Beach) involved the question of whether and when the submission of an insurance claim constitutes prelitigation conduct protected by section 425.16. 2014Co. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 82 (Beach) involved the question of whether and when the submission of an insurance claim constitutes prelitigation conduct protected by section 425.16. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Aronson v. Kinsella
green
1 sentence2012(Aronson v. Kinsella, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 270 .) In the instant case, the attorneys argue that the submission of an insurance claim constitutes protected petitioning conduct as both a necessary prerequisite to litigation and prelitigation demand letter. | 1 | 2012–2012 |