Insurance
Mar. 5, 2013
Recent decisions evince trend in insurance litigation
Until recently, beyond occasional cases involving notice or cooperation clauses, few decisions addressed other aspects of conditions excusing an insurer from performing its obligations.
Rex Heeseman
JAMS
555 W 5th St Fl 32
Los Angeles , CA 90013-1055
Phone: (213) 253-9772
Fax: (213) 620-0100
Email: rheeseman@jamsdar.com
Stanford Univ Law School
Rex Heeseman retired from the Los Angeles Count Superior Court bench in 2014. He is at JAMS, Los Angeles. Besides speaking at various MCLE programs, he co-authors The Rutter Group's practice guide on "Insurance Litigation." From 2002 to 2015, he was an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School.
An insurer's obligation to respond to or even pay a loss sometimes turns upon its insured's satisfaction of the policy's "conditions," which neither confer nor exclude overage; rather, conditions impose certain standards upon the insured in order to seek coverage. North American Capacity Ins. Co. v. Claremont Liab. Ins. Co., 177 Cal. App. 4th 272 (2009). Similar such standards are "warranties" which are in the nature of a condition precedent mandating the insured's compliance. ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In