The Prevalence of Life, Health and Disability Benefit Claim Denials is Astounding: It’s Worse Than You Thought

On Behalf of | Feb 2, 2017 | Bad Faith, Disability Insurance, Disability Insurance News, ERISA, ERISA - Abuse of Discretion, Firm News, Health/Medical Insurance, Insurance Bad Faith, Insurance Litigation Blog, Life Insurance

The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that a whopping 75 percent of long-term disability claims are denied.  With over six decades of collective experience representing both insurers and their policyholders, the lawyers at McKennon Law Group PC have seen insurers...

Insureds May Still Have a Claim for Insurance Bad Faith Even If Their Insurer Offered to Pay the Policy Limits

On Behalf of | Dec 13, 2016 | Bad Faith, Case Updates, Duty to Settle, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, Insurance Litigation Blog

Under California law, an insurer has an obligation to, among other things, make reasonable efforts to settle a third party’s lawsuit against an insured.  As a recent decision rendered by the California Court of Appeals illustrates, “reasonable efforts” entail more...

In an Insurance Bad Faith Case, Attorneys’ Fees are “Compensatory Damages” That can Increase a Punitive Damages Award

On Behalf of | Jun 24, 2016 | Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, Insurance Litigation Blog

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court decision State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) that generally limited punitive damages suffered by a plaintiff.  Since then, California courts have stated generally that a 10-1 ratio of...

What’s a Policyholder to Do? California Court Permits “Conditional Judgment” Awarding Replacement Cost to Policyholders

On Behalf of | Dec 11, 2014 | Breach of Contract, Case Updates, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, Property & Casualty Insurance

When a covered property is damaged, the insured may face a quintessential Catch-22—the insured cannot afford to proceed with costly repairs or replacement without insurance money, but until the repairs or replacements are finished, the insured cannot recover under the...

Insurers Have a Duty to Defend Where a Complaint Could Be Fairly Amended to State a Covered Liability; California Supreme Court Clarifies Duty to Defend Disparagement Claims Under Advertising Injury Coverage

On Behalf of | Jun 20, 2014 | Breach of Contract, Case Updates, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith

An insurer has a duty to defend even if the causes of action in a lawsuit are not expressly covered by a liability policy if the factual allegations may support a potentially covered claim.  This was expansive interpretation of the duty to defend adopted by the United...

Expert Testimony Can Help Policyholders Establish Property Damage and Survive Summary Judgment

On Behalf of | May 22, 2014 | Breach of Contract, Case Updates, Expert Testimony, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith

Policyholders often face a formidable challenge proving causation on property damage claims, particularly when insurance companies insist on deferring to their own experts and adjustors.  Of course, insurance companies must conduct reasonable investigations and review...

Policyholder Wins Handed Down in Insurance Decisions. Daily Journal Publishes McKennon Law Group PC Article.

On Behalf of | Feb 12, 2014 | Breach of Contract, Case Updates, Disability Insurance, Disability Insurance News, Duty to Defend, Duty to Settle, ERISA, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, News, Unfair Business Practices/Unfair Competition

The February 10, 2014 edition of the Los Angeles Daily Journal featured Robert McKennon’s article entitled:  “Policyholder Wins Handed Down in Insurance Decisions.”  In it, Mr. McKennon discusses six insurance decisions handed down in California and federal courts in...

Clearing Up Murky Waters: Insurer’s Duty to Settle. Daily Journal Publishes McKennon Law Group PC Article.

On Behalf of | Oct 29, 2013 | Breach of Contract, Duty to Settle, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith

The October 29, 2013 edition of the Los Angeles Daily Journal featured Robert McKennon’s article entitled:  “Clearing Up Murky Waters: Insurer’s Duty to Settle.”  In it, Mr. McKennon discusses the  California Court of Appeal’s decision in Reid v. Mercury Insurance...

Alas, A Very Hot Issue in California Insurance Law is Decided (At Least for Now): Insurers Have No Affirmative Duty to Settle as Long as They Do Not Foreclose the Possibility of Settlement and/or Absent a Within-Policy-Limits Settlement Demand

On Behalf of | Oct 18, 2013 | Breach of Contract, Duty to Settle, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith

One of the hottest issues in California insurance law has been whether a breach of the good faith duty to settle can be found in the absence of a within-policy-limits settlement demand, thus giving rise to an insurer’s liability for an excess judgment. The frenzy of...

Want to Open Up the Policy Limits on a Policy? Try Making a Section 998 Offer Above Policy Limits and You Just May Be Able to Do It

On Behalf of | Oct 18, 2013 | Breach of Contract, Duty to Settle, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith

Can a pretrial California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to settle above an insurer’s policy limits result in opening up a policy’s liability limits?  Interestingly, a California Court of Appeal has said “yes” to this question under certain limited...