Recent Cases -

Sprinkles v. Associated Indemnity Corporation (9/1/10) Where commercial general liability policy covered insured's employees "but only for acts within the scope of their employment while performing duties related to the conduct of [insured’s] business," and employee--who caused fatal motor vehicle collision on his way to work--was required to drive to work in his own vehicle to be able to travel to various locations, employee was an insured under the policy, and claim was unambiguously excluded from coverage as one arising from the operation of a motor vehicle by an insured.

Dominguez v. Financial Indemnity Company (3/20/10) Placement of automobile policy's lesser coverage limitations within insuring agreement on page three, combined with multiple emphasized references to coverage limitations on the face page, table of contents, and page seven of policy, conspicuously advised insured that coverage for a permissive user of the insured vehicle are not coextensive with insured's and explicitly informed insured what those limits were. Where insured was advised that coverage no greater than the minimum limits would be provided if vehicle were operated by "a person other than you, a relative, and an agent or employee of you or a relative in the course and scope of their agency or employment," and further that the coverage reduction "does not apply to any liability incurred by you or a relative," such language was sufficiently plain and clear to render limitation enforceable.

 Abdelhamid v. Fire Insurance Exchange (2/2210) Where insured did not provide insurer with address where she was living when property she had insured was damaged by fire and failed to provide insurer with an estimated value of loss for other damages buildings, detailed estimates of repair, inventory of damaged personal property, and receipts and records supporting her additional living expenses, no reasonable trier of fact could have found insured substantially performed her obligations or complied with condition of her insurance contract requiring her to provide a proof of loss with supporting documentation.

Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company (1/19/10) Insurer was entitled to rescission as a matter of law where insured failed to disclose material information about her medical condition and treatment on her application; evidence showing that insured lacked any intent to defraud failed to create a triable issue of fact.
Insurer had no statutory duty to show that insured’s application had been physically attached to insurance policy or to conduct further inquiries during underwriting process to ascertain truthfulness of insured’s representations before issuing policy.

Troyk v Farmers Group, Inc (Prematic Service Corporation) (12/09/08 Fourth District, Division One; Insurance Code Section 381(f); (Class Action) Insurer may be liable for restitution under the Unfair Competition Law for service payments tendered even though insurer did not directly recieve payments from insureds.

Insurer's agent in billing and collecting servces charges from insureds may be liable on same basis as insurer. This was a procedural ruling; however, it reflects the direction the courts will move in situations which are similar and commonplace.