Temecula Business and Insurance Attorney Supplies Litigation Update
Temecula Business and Insurance Attorney Supplies Litigation Update
Bill Introduced to Require that Judge, Not Jury, Determine Amount of Punitive Damages Award - In civil cases, an award of "punitive damages" is sometimes available to the plaintiff. The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a wrongdoer for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff and to discourage similar conduct in the future. They are presented when the plaintiff can adduce apparent and convincing proof that the defendant acted with "fraud, oppression or malice." Under this model, punitive damages often are fitting when the defendant acted with intention to harm the plaintiff, or when its conduct was otherwise "despicable" in that it was so vile, base, or disgraceful that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.
Punitive damages have been the source of controversy over the years. Some, especially business and industry groups, have opposed punitive damage awards as unfair, unpredictable and often extreme. Many of these critics see heavy punitive damages awards as the inappropriate product of angered juror emotions.
Under current law, it is usually a jury that determines not only whether punitive damages should be awarded, but also the total of the award. California Assembly Bill No. 556, introduced February 16, 2011, would change that. If the Bill is enacted in its current form, the jury would still answer the threshold question of whether punitive damages should be awarded. Then, however, the judge would resolve the monetary amount of any such award, not the jury.
California Supreme Court Holds Fire Insurance Policy Provides Coverage to Innocent Insureds Despite Willful Act of Co-Insured In Causing Loss - The case of Century-National Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 51 Cal. 4th 564 (2011) concerned a dispute with an insurance company and its insureds, two homeowners, who sought coverage for a blaze that damaged their home. The insurance company contended that the policy provided no coverage for the fire because, allegedly, it was purposely set by a co-insured who lived in the home.
At issue in the case was the language in the policy indicating that there would be no coverage for "any loss arising out of any act committed by or at the direction of any insured having the intent to cause a loss." The insurance company argued that this language - particularly the phrase "any insured" - meant that if the damage was intentionally caused by any insured, even the innocent insureds (i.e., those who had no responsibility for the damage) could not collect on the insurance. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal agreed with this interpretation.
The California Supreme Court, however, reversed. The Court started its analysis with the provisions of California Insurance Code 2070. That section requires that any fire insurance policy bestow coverage at least as beneficial to the insured as the State's "standard form" insurance policy, which is part of Insurance Code 2071. Taking a look at the standard form fire policy contained at 2071, the Court noted first that it does not itself contain an exclusion for intentional conduct of an insured. The Court ruled, though, that implied into this policy are the terms of Insurance Code 533, containing an exclusion for intentional acts. 533 provides in part that: "An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the willful act of the insured." Because this provision uses the terminology "the insured," the Court understood it to mean that even if one insured acted deliberately in causing the fire, such would not prevent another, innocent insured from recovering on the policy. Thus, the "standard form" insurance policy allows coverage to the innocent insured.
As such, the provision in the policy barring coverage for the intentional act of "any insured" is void. Again, 2070 requires coverage to be at least as favorable to the insured as the standard form policy of 2071, which covers innocent insureds. So the policy at issue in the case must be construed as covering the innocent insureds.
The Garcia case represents another decision by California courts favoring insureds.
This article is intended to convey accurate general information concerning the subject matter covered, but should not be construed as legal advice, which would be dependent upon the specific circumstances of the client.
How To Assure Your Insurance Continues In Pursuance Of Its Total Term Tata coverage query Microinsurance Definition - Next Revolution Insurance Job Company Will be Insurance Jobs Hard for getting? How Combining Colorado Springs Insurance Policies Saves Money Insurance Plans For Dance Clubs Dangers Of Relying Insurance Company Services To Compute Values In Insurance Claims Watch Washington Nationals vs Houston Astros Online Game Coverage Commercial Truck Insurance helps Trading Businesses Survive TSN Presents Comprehensive Coverage of NHL Trade Deadline Day 'TRADECENTRE '11' on Monday, Feb. 28 Watch Denver Nuggets vs Atlanta Hawks Online Game Coverage Hospital Insurance Can Bridge Gaps