7th Jul 2020
2020 EDITION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE LAW DICTIONARY AND DESK REFERENCE
The 2020 Edition is the 26th Edition of the DICTIONARY, originally published in 1994. From 1994 the DICTIONARY has grown from a one-volume text of 400 pages to three volumes and over 6500 pages.
Before this 2020 Edition the 3-volume text had 2008 separate subject matters. Within these separate subject matters the text cites over 3600 state and federal judicial opinions and over 2700 state and federal statutes and rules.
This 26th Edition includes:
1. Reference to seven new Supreme Court opinions.
2. Reference to and discussions of 41 Court of Appeal opinions.
3. Reference to 24 new words and phrases.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS:
Between March 2018 and March 2019 the Supreme Court rendered seven decisions relevant to the subject matter of this text:
1. City of Oroville v. Superior Court (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 1091. The court discussed the subject of “causal connection” between the public improvement and the damage to private property. The damage must be caused by an inherent risk of the designed public improvement. See discussion § I78 INVERSE CONDEMNATION [§ I78:1 In general].
2. FilmOn.com, Inc. v. Double Verify, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 133. The court discusses internet use and advertising through online platforms. This discussion is in the context of a consideration of whether the anti-slapp statute is a defense to a suit against the defendant for making disparaging statements or descriptions about another’s business. See discussion § A34.03 ADVERTISING – INTERNET ONLINE PLATFORMS; § A74 ANTI-SLAPP [§ A74:2 Meaning of – “act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech”].
3. Heimlich v. Shivja (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 350. The court discussed vacation of an arbitration award for “refusal … to hear evidence material to the controversy”. See in general § A119 AWARD [§ A119:5 Grounds for vacating an award; “Principle of arbitral finality”].
4. OTO, LLC v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal. 5th 111. The court discussed arbitration provisions within adhesive contracts. The court in OTO, LLC held an employer agreement regarding payment of wages may be unconscionable where the employee is coerced or misled into accepting arbitration as a remedy. See § A86 ARBITRATION [§ A86:1.04 State statutory wage and hour claims].
5. Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. (2019) 8 Cal. 5th 93. The court held that the California notice-prejudice rule is applicable to first party policy coverages where the insured fails to give notice of expenses it is incurring to remediate a damaged condition. See § N36 NOTICE-PREJUDICE RULE [§ N36:3]. The court also discussed an exception to the requirement that the insured obtain an insurer’s written consent before incurring “pre-tender expenses”. See § P 76 PRE-TENDER EXPENSES [§ P76:4.1 Emergency exception; first party policy],
6. Rand Resources v. City of Carson (2019) 6 Cal. 5th 610. The court discussed the scope and meaning of “public interest” as that phrase is used in the anti-slapp statute. See § A74 ANTI-SLAPP [§ A74:2].
7. Wilson v. Cable News Network (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 871. Wilson discussed many issues pertaining to the anti-slapp statute which issues included (a) the anti-slapp statute defined protected activity to include not only the act of speaking, but any other conduct in the furtherance of constitutional speech rights on matters of public interest. See § A74 ANTI-SLAPP [§ A74:2.02 Speech as protected activity], (b) the court may order discovery where proof of discrimination and retaliation is extremely difficult within the 60-day period when an anti-slapp motion must be made. See § A74 ANTI-SLAPP [§ A74:3.2 Exception: discovery permitted], (c) the anti-slapp defense filed by an employer against a suit by a terminated employee alleging discrimination and unlawful retaliation. See § E12 EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION [§ E12:3].
NEW WORDS OR PHRASES ADDED TO THE 26TH EDITION
Twenty-four new words or phrases have been added to the 26th Edition. These new words and phrases are:
§ A34.03 ADVERTISING – INTERNET ONLINE PLATFORMS
§ A87.01 ARBITRATOR’S REFUSAL TO HEAR EVIDENCE [VACATING AWARD]
§ C73.01 CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION’S ALLRISK PROPERTY INSURANCE
§ C76.05 CONSENT OF INSURER REQUIRED BEFORE INSURED INCURS EXPENSES
§ C110.01 CONTRIBUTE IN ANY LEGAL WAY
§ C148.01 CRANE
§ E54.02 EXPENSES INCURRED BY INSURED
§ F5.01 FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE OF EXPENSES
§ F22.01 FINANCIAL VULNERABILITY OF INSURED; PUNITIVE DAMAGES
§ I39.01 IN POINT (APPELLATE DECISION AS CONTROLLING)
§ I76.04 INTOXICATION
§ J12.01 JUDGMENT CREDITOR PROCEEDINGS
§ L41.01 LIMITS OF LIABILITY
§ M54.01 MULTI-LAYERED COMPLEX INSURANCE COVERAGES
§ N41.01 NUMEROUS MULTI-LAYERED INSURANCE POLICIES
§ O24.01 OPPRESSIVE CONDUCT
§ R33.01 REINSURANCE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (RPA)
§ R45.01 RENT
§ R46.01 RENTAL CAR AGENCY ACT
§ S11.01 SECOND POLICY DISCOVERED
§ S11.02 SECRETLY RECORDED CONVERSATIONS
§ T19.01 THIRD PARTY NONINSURED CLAIMANT’S CLAIM TO POLICY PROCEEDS UNDER AN INSURED’S POLICY
§ T21.01 TIME LIMITS; DUTY OF INSURER TO RESPOND TO CLAIMS BY INSUREDS
§ T28.005 TOWERS MULTI-LAYERED LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGES
EXPANDED EXISTING SECTIONS IN THE TEXT
§ A74 ANTI-SLAPP
Fourteen appellate decisions (3 from the Supreme Court and 11 from the Court of Appeal) have been added to the text. These appellate decisions greatly expanded the scope and meaning of the anti-slapp statute regarding various procedural and substantive meanings and applications. The subjects include (a) expanded meaning of “public interest” as a protected act, (b) the definition of protected activity [§ A74:2.01 – 2.07], (c) when discovery would be permitted as an exception to the no discovery permission otherwise established under the statute, (d) evidence permitted under STEP TWO [§ A74:5], (e) arbitration as not an “official proceeding” authorized by CCP § 425.16 [§ A74:7.4], (f) defamation as “protected speech” [§ A74:7.6], (g) attorney’s use of the anti-slapp motion [§ A74:11], (h) commercial speech exemption from the anti-slapp protection [§ A74:14].
§ A76 ARBITRATION
The rules pertaining to procedural and substantive issues regarding arbitration continue to be explained and expanded, consistent with such expansion in prior years as discussed in this introduction for previous years. The multiple subject matters are outlined in the OUTLINE OF CONTENTS at the beginning of the ARBITRATION chapter.
§ D13 DEFAMATION
The applicability of the anti-slapp motion to a plaintiff’s suit for defamation is discussed.
§ E12 EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
Discussion of the applicability of the anti-slapp defense is discussed in Wilson v Cable News Network (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 871, 882.
§ M8 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
§ P123 PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Added discussions include (a) the meaning of managing agent, (b) ratification as a ground for punitive damages, (c) the requirement that proof be “clear and convincing evidence”, (d) ratification as a basis for punitive damages, (e) repeated conduct as a basis for punitive damages, (f) when “statutory” penalties do not govern the amount of punitive damages awarded.
§ R55.01 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Discussion of making a motion to compel where “denials” are made in the responding party’s response.
§ S18 SELF-INSURED RETENTION
The comparison of self-insured retention and deductible is added.
§ U6 UNCONSCIONABILITY
Several cases have expanded the application of unconscionability to arbitration agreements.
The above are only a few of the 150 words and phrases that have been expanded due to the recent decisions of the appellate courts and recent statutory additions.
References in bold are to Mr. Cornblum’s text CALIFORNIA INSURANCE LAW DICTIONARY AND DESK REFERENCE, 2020 Edition, published by ThomsonReuters (1-800-344-5008) to order 3-Volume text). This text is also available to search on Westlaw.
16935 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 155
San Diego (Rancho Bernardo), California 92127
PO Box 28536
San Diego CA 92198-0536