Court Examines Producer's Role in Processing Inaccurate Online Application

By Edward F. Donohue III., Esq. of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Douglas et al. v. Fidelity National Insurance Co., 2014 WL 4261346 (Cal.App. 8/29/14).

A California Court reversed an $800,000 fire loss recovery on the grounds that an independent agent may have effectively acted as the policyholder's broker in submitting an inaccurate online application. In that event the court suggested the property insurer Fidelity National Insurance Co. would likely be entitled to rescind the policy.

Under the Right Circumstances, an Insured Entitled to "Independent Counsel" in California Can Retain More Than One Firm

By Carey B. Moorehead, Esq. of Wilson Elser

In a case of first impression, a California District Court has ruled that California law does not preclude an insured from retaining multiple law firms as independent or Cumis counsel where the insurer is defending under reservation of rights. The court's ruling came in the case of Signal Products v. American Zurich Insurance Company, et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California No. 2:13-cv-04581 - CAS-AJWx.

Medical Professional Negligence - What's In A Name? If You're The Plaintiff, It Doesn't Matter

By Wendy R.S. O'Connor, Esq. of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.

You Get Sick Leave, I Get Sick Leave, Everyone Gets Sick Leave in California

By Nicole Davis Tinkham, Esq. of Collins, Collins Muir + Stewart LLP

On July 1, 2015, California becomes the second state in the nation to guarantee paid sick leave for nearly all employees. The new law will be known as the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014. This law will require all employers, with very few exceptions, to update their handbooks and institute a new record-keeping policy for their employees.

California Supreme Court Rules On Insurer's Duty to Defend Disparagement Claims

By Marc Zimet, Esq. of Jampol Zimet LLP

On June 12, 2014 the California Supreme Court decided what constitutes disparagement under a commercial general liability policy in Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Swift Distribution, Inc. Its findings clarify what constitutes disparagement within the meaning of an insurance policy, as well as when an insurer's duty to defend is triggered.