What is the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act?

Useful Rulings on Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act

Recent Rulings on Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act

SERNA VS ISLANDS RESTAURANTS LP

While Insurance Code § 791.02(v) provides a definition of "privileged information" for purposes of the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, Plaintiff offers no authority as to the scope of protection afforded to the information Defendants seek via these subpoenas. The case Plaintiff relies on, Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WILFRED POOL VS ROBERT KRIBS

Insurance Code section 791.13 provides, in part, that an insurance institution shall not disclose any personal or privileged information about an individual collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction unless the disclosure is with the written authorization of the individual or in response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including a search warrant or subpoena.¿ (Ins. Code, § 791.13,¿subds. (a), (h); see also¿Mead Reinsurance Co. v.

  • Hearing

TIMOTHY BURTON VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff argues the subpoenas seek documents that are privileged pursuant to Insurance Code section 791, et seq. Insurance records are subject to requests for production. (See Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 739.) As the court in Irvington-Moore, Inc. stated, this act “. . . does not purport to create a privilege against discovery by an insured party who is a party to a lawsuit.”

  • Hearing

AMEZCUA V. SEARSVALE ACQUISITION, L.L.C

“This request is made pursuant to the normal discovery rules, as well as pursuant to California Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, especially Section 8 thereof.” Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED as to this Request. There is no information before the Court explaining what the referenced “Index Reports” are, who prepares them and for what purpose, and what relevance they have here. Plaintiff’s Opposition to the motion does not appear to even mention this Request No. 14.

  • Hearing

JESS GRIEGO VS MARIBEL PRATT ET AL

Plaintiff also contends the information is protected by the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act (Ins. Code, § 791 et seq.). “ ‘Privileged information’ means any individually identifiable information that both: (1) Relates to a claim for insurance benefits or a civil or criminal proceeding involving an individual. (2) Is collected in connection with or in reasonable anticipation of a claim for insurance benefits or civil or criminal proceeding involving an individual. …” Ins. Code § 791.02(v).

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC., ET AL. V. STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY

Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 741, held that the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act “applies to, and restricts, information gathering practices and disclosures of information by insurers. it does not purport to create a privilege against discovery by an insured party who is a party to a lawsuit.” Defendant has not pointed to any questions that have been asked at its employees’ depositions so far that have been improper or irrelevant.

  • Hearing

EMILIE KHATCHETOURIAN VS HARRIS ASCENCIO

(California Insurance Code §§ 791 through 791.28 (§ 791.13); § 11580, et seq. and also 15 USC §§ 6801, et seq.) Defendants object to this request on the grounds that the category seeks information that is private and/or corporate confidential financial information protected from disclosure by the right to privacy under Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. (See e.g., Valley Bank of Nevada v Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 652.).

  • Hearing

FAMILY INVESTMENT V. MACH-1 AUTOGROUP

Code, §§ 791, subd. (b), 1236.) It might be helpful to review the procedure contemplated by a contempt proceeding: 1. Defendants initiated the contempt proceeding by serving an affidavit on 2/5/20. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1211, 1211.5.) 2. The contemnor is entitled to a reading of the charges, advisement of rights, and arraignment. 3. The arraignment was continued on 2/6/20 to 4/21/20, and then due to the COVID-19 closure to 6/15/20. 4.

  • Hearing

HEATH PLILER VS LAUREN MCMEIKAN ET AL

Plaintiff also contends that the records are protected because they are insurance records, citing section 791.13 of the Insurance Code. Section 791.13, subd. (h) permits disclosure of insurance records ““[i]n response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including a search warrant or subpoena.” Here, as previously discussed, Plaintiff waived any right to privacy in records related to injuries to the particular body parts and conditions for which Plaintiff seeks recovery in this lawsuit.

  • Hearing

AMELIA ACOSTA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JORGE SERRANO REYES, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Plaintiff argues that insurance records constitute protected private information under The Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act (Ins. Code §791.01, et seq.). Ins. Code §791.13 states: “An insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization shall not disclose any personal or privileged information about an individual collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction. . . .”

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ARMEN YARIAN VS FRANK JOSEPH GUEVARA

The Griffith court explained the legislative purpose for Insurance Code section 791.13: “By enacting the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, the Legislature acknowledged that an insurance company is a repository of an enormous amount of information,” and thus sought to “strictly limit the dissemination of information contained in insurance files.” (Id. at p. 66.)

  • Hearing

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA

Opt in or opt out for businesses’ claim files NUF raises a third party privacy objection pursuant to the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act. Section 791.13 specifically requires that the insurer provide a letter seeking consent of the disclosure of the information collected or received by the insurer to any individual policyholder. The parties agree that an opt in letter is required as to individual policyholders regarding the release of information collected or received by NUF to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

LISA ROLLINS VS EBRAHIM SHOWKATI-TABRIZI, ET AL.

Insurance Code section 791.13 provides, in part, that an insurance institution shall not disclose any personal or privileged information about an individual collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction unless the disclosure is with the written authorization of the individual or in response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including a search warrant or subpoena. (Ins. Code, § 791.13, subd. (a), (h); see also Mead Reinsurance Co. v.

  • Hearing

JASHEN LIWANAG, AN INDIVIDUAL VS GLORIA DALPOGGETTO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Plaintiff contends that pursuant to Insurance Code section 791.13, the contents of the insurance company’s claims files may be disclosed only upon the written consent of the claimant. Ins. Code section 791.13. The Court is not persuaded by this argument.

  • Hearing

LISA ROLLINS VS EBRAHIM SHOWKATI-TABRIZI, ET AL.

Insurance Code section 791.13 provides, in part, that an insurance institution shall not disclose any personal or privileged information about an individual collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction unless the disclosure is with the written authorization of the individual or in response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including a search warrant or subpoena. (Ins. Code, § 791.13, subds. (a), (h); see also Mead Reinsurance Co. v.

  • Hearing

LETICIA CAMACHO, ET AL VS DENISE CRAWFORD, ET AL

Code”) §791.01 et seq. This argument is not compelling. Pursuant to Ins. Code § 791.13, “[a]n insurance institution . . . shall not disclose any personal or privileged information about an individual collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction unless the disclosure is . . . [¶] (h) In response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including search warrant or subpoena.”

  • Hearing

ANTHONY ARCE VS JENNIFER PEI ET AL

Code § 791, et seq., creates a privilege against disclosure of insurance information. Section 791, et seq. does restrict an insurer from disclosing information. However, Irvington also states that the Insurance Code “does not purport to create a privilege against discovery by an insured party who is a party to a lawsuit.

  • Hearing

GARY SACKS VS BEHRAN AMIRAN ET AL

The act “was enacted ‘to establish standards for the collection, use and disclosure of information gathered in connection with insurance transactions by insurance institutions, agents or insurance-support organizations. . . The act applies to, and restricts, information gathering practices and disclosures of information by insurers. It does not purport to create a privilege against discovery by an insured party who is a party to a lawsuit.

  • Hearing

JANE DN DOE VS ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, E

Next, Starr argues that the Claims Documents includes private information of third parties, subject to Insurance Code §§ 791 et seq., Education Code § 49076, 20 U.S.C. 1232g and 34 CFC Part 99 (“FERPA”). Insurance Code §§ 791 et seq. is implicated in Claims Documents that would intrude upon the privacy of other persons, including minors, whose personal information may be included in responsive documents.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CATHY JENKINS VS BJ'S RESTAURANTS INC

Plaintiff cites Ins Code § 791.01, the purpose of which is to “establish standards for the collection, use and disclosure of information gathered in connection with insurance transactions by insurance institutions, agents or insurance-support organizations … .” Cal. Ins. Code § 791.01. It limits the disclosure of such information. Id. Thus, insurance records are protected from disclosure. Additionally, the subpoena demands disclosure of medical records, regardless of injury or date of occurrence.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CATHY JENKINS VS BJ'S RESTAURANTS INC

Plaintiff cites Ins Code § 791.01, the purpose of which is to “establish standards for the collection, use and disclosure of information gathered in connection with insurance transactions by insurance institutions, agents or insurance-support organizations … .” Cal. Ins. Code § 791.01. It limits the disclosure of such information. Id. Thus, insurance records are protected from disclosure. Additionally, the subpoena demands disclosure of medical records, regardless of injury or date of occurrence.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY VS HAIER US APPLIANCE SOLUTION

The court finds that defendant has established good cause for the production of the subject claim file, and plaintiff in opposition has failed to justify objections based on work product and Insurance Code § 791.

  • Hearing

RACHITHA KASI, ET AL. V. NICHOLAS G. GAWALDO, ET AL.

They object to Nicholas’s inclusion of two settlement letters to State Farm on the basis of Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1154, the constitutional right to privacy, and Insurance Code section 791.13. Essentially, they argue the letters are confidential settlement communications that cannot be disclosed and they disclose information that violates their right to privacy.

  • Hearing

DANIEL GEOULLA VS CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Further, insurance files are protected by Insurance Code section 791 et seq. and third-party privacy rights. (See Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 313, 321 [discovery of insurance claim files may be conditioned on obtaining the written consent of the persons to whom the files relate].) Respondent filed no opposition to this Motion.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA

NUF objected to RPDs 23 and 24, asserting that the requests were overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, trade secret privilege, and the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act set forth in Insurance Code section 791.01. Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to RPDs 23 and 24.

  • Hearing

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.