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

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

    Jun 01, 2020

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

    Mar 03, 2020

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

    Jan 21, 2020

  • 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

    Dec 17, 2019

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

    Dec 05, 2019

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

    Nov 27, 2019

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

    Nov 08, 2019

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

    Oct 29, 2019

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

    Jul 30, 2019

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

    Jul 01, 2019

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

    May 09, 2019

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

    Apr 11, 2019

  • 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

    Apr 09, 2019

  • 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

    Apr 03, 2019

  • 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

    Jan 11, 2019

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

    Jan 10, 2019

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

    Dec 28, 2018

  • 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

    Dec 20, 2018

DOE VS. MCKAY

Code §791.01 et seq.), and that all documents so withheld will be identified on a privilege log concurrently provided. (Id.) IABA thus appears to be representing that nothing responsive will be withheld based on the other objections, and that everything responsive which is withheld on the stated grounds will be logged. If that is not the case, the parties are to further meet and confer as to those supplemental responses.

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2018

ARSEN MESROPYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. MAJESTY ONE PROPERTIES

Proc. (5th Ed. 2008) Pleading, section 785, pp. 203-204 (“A complaint for specific performance must allege the following: (1) A specifically enforceable type of contract, sufficiently certain in its terms (infra, section 787); (2) Adequate consideration, and a just and reasonable contract (infra, section 791 et seq.); (4) The defendant’s breach (supra, section 534 et seq.); (5) Inadequacy of the remedy at law (infra, section 803 et seq.)”).

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANGELA MARY ZARTUCHE VS JACK DAVID AQUINO

With respect to the insurance records held by Liberty Mutual, 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 … .” Ins. Code § 791.01. Defendant cites Irvington-Moore, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

LANGFORD VS. SCHLOTZHAUER

Insurance company records are protected by the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act. While, defendant has a right to obtain billing and insurance payment information regarding treatment related to the incident, Subpoena T is not limited in time, subject matter or healthcare provider. Further, a least restrictive means exist to obtain the relevant information regarding medical billings/insurance payments which is to obtain the medical billings from the specific providers.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2018

RICARDO GUZMAN VS. ESTRADA TRUST

Defendants point to the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act. (Ins.Code, § 791 et seq.) That act is part of this state's regulation of the business of insurance. It 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; ..." (Ins.Code, § 791.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

Code § 791, subd. (a)(3).) Judge Paul K. Richardson of the Yolo County Superior Court issued a Minute Order which indicated, “[Morejohn] has complied with the terms of diversion [restitution] to be determined,” and “dismissed with exception of restitution.” (AR 109.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2018

CORE HEALTH & FITNESS LLC ET AL VS NATIONAL UNION FIRE I

National Union argues that an order requiring it to produce claim files of policy holders other than Core also argues that the deposition notice is overbroad, requesting information from entities other than National Union in violation of California Insurance Code Section 791.13, and that it will pose an undue burden upon it, causing it to expend up to 1.1 million hours searching more than 2 million underwriting files. (Motion at pp. 10–13.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2018

  • Judge

    Robert S. Draper or Gail Ruderman Feuer

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.