In St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., Case No. B229345 (Cal. Ct. App., October  26, 2012) (Second Appellate District), in an equitable contribution action, the Court of Appeal held that when a settling insurer establishes a potential for coverage exists under a non-participating co-insurer’s policy with a defense duty, the non-participating insurer must prove an actual absence of coverage to overcome the contribution action. 

Attachments:

St. Paul Opinion

[ ]

155 Kb

In Fluor Corp. v. Sup. Ct. of Orange County, et al., No. G045579 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2012), the Fourth District Appellate Court held Insurance Code section 520 (stating that an agreement not to transfer the claim of the insured against the insurer after a loss has happened is void if made before the loss), does not apply to liability insurance policies, and thus has no impact on the California Supreme Court’s analysis in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. 29 Cal.4th 934 (2003) (holding that except in certain situations consent-to-assignment clauses prohibit the assignment of rights under a policy to an independent company without the consent of the insurer). 

Attachments:

Fluor Opinion

[ ]

162 Kb

            In Entin v. Superior Court (Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company), Case No. B239642 (Cal. Ct. App., August 20, 2012) (Second Appellate District), the Court of Appeal held an insured was entitled to a jury trial because the insurer’s election to pay policy proceeds pending a coverage determination did not make the insurer’s declaratory relief action “equitable in nature.”

Attachments:

Entin case (SF560853).pdf

[ ]

1025 Kb