On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Dec 18, 2013 | Case Updates, Disability Insurance, Disability Insurance News, ERISA, ERISA - Statute of Limitations, Firm News, Insurance Litigation Blog, Policy Interpretation
In a highly anticipated decision, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that insureds with employer-sponsored plans are contractually bound by the limitations periods set forth in their plan documents. These limitations periods, which specify when insureds...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Oct 16, 2013 | Case Updates, Duty to Defend, Firm News, Policy Interpretation
Insurers providing general liability insurance cannot shirk their duty to defend insureds at the outset of litigation by relying on self-insured retention (SIR) provisions in those policies unless the policies expressly and unambiguously make the insurer’s duty to...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Sep 25, 2013 | Breach of Contract, Case Updates, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, Policy Interpretation, Property & Casualty Insurance
Commercial property owners may recover lost rental income from their insurer if they are unable to rent out damaged property, absent clear policy exclusions. The California Court of Appeal recently held the owner of commercial property has a reasonable expectation of...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Sep 5, 2013 | Directors & Officers Insurance, Duty to Defend, Firm News, Policy Interpretation, Property & Casualty Insurance
In a recent ruling, the California Court of Appeal held that an insurer’s general reservation of rights to deny coverage of damages outside its policy does not create a conflict of interest with the insured, such that the insured in entitled to Cumis counsel. The...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Mar 8, 2012 | Firm News, Health/Medical Insurance, Policy Interpretation
In the unpublished case of Probst v. Superior Court (Health Net of California, Inc., et al), No. A133742 (March 6, 2012), Division Five of the First Appellate District refused to enforce an arbitration provision in an enrollment form. Brian Probst (who filed a...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Feb 16, 2012 | Disability Insurance, Disability Insurance News, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, Insurance Litigation Blog, Policy Interpretation
In 2009, the California Court of Appeal in Bosetti v. The United States Life Ins. Co., 175 Cal. App. 4th 1208 (2009) addressed whether a two-year benefits limitation on disability insurance payments for “mental, nervous or emotional disorder[s]” could properly serve...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Sep 1, 2011 | Case Updates, Disability Insurance, Disability Insurance News, Firm News, Policy Interpretation
Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an ERISA administrator must make a “clear and continuing repudiation” of a claim, in compliance with its duties of proper notification under ERISA, in order for a claim to “accrue” and thus start the statute of...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Aug 22, 2011 | Case Updates, Duty to Defend, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, Legal Articles, Policy Interpretation, Property & Casualty Insurance
According to a recent California appellate court decision, a contractor’s negligent release of asbestos fibers during the removal of asbestos-containing acoustical spray in a condominium complex is excluded by the pollution exclusion in a homeowner association’s...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Mar 15, 2011 | Case Updates, Duty to Defend, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, Policy Interpretation, Property & Casualty Insurance
Every now and then a court decision comes along that is a virtual one-stop shop for basic insurance coverage and bad faith principles—a primer for newbie insurance attorneys and a refresher for seasoned litigators. Chief Judge Anthony Ishii’s recent decision granting...
On Behalf of McKennon Law Group PC | Feb 23, 2011 | Case Updates, Firm News, Insurance Bad Faith, Policy Interpretation, Property & Casualty Insurance
Noting a paucity of recent California Supreme Court precedent on whether strict or merely substantial compliance with an insurance warranty is required to invoke coverage, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that California law requires strict compliance...
