“The Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act (Ins. Code, Sec. 791 et seq.) requires a written authorization before an insurance company may disclose personal information about an individual collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction.” (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1257 n. 6 citing Ins. Code, Sec. 791.13.)
"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 unless the disclosure is:...(g) Otherwise permitted or required by law. (h) In response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including a search warrant or subpoena." In Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 733, 741, the Court stated: “We find nothing in the Insurance Code provisions cited by defendants which would require a restrictive interpretation of the Civil Discovery Act of 1986. Defendants point to the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act.” (Ins.Code, Sec. 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, Sec. 791.) 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. Moreover, the provisions of the insurance act yield where disclosure is "[o]therwise permitted or required by law" or is "[i]n response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including a search warrant or subpoena." (Ins.Code, Sec. 791.13(g), (h).)"
This section is part of the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act (Ins. Code, Sec. 791 et seq.). "The purpose of this article 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; to maintain a balance between the need for information by those conducting the business of insurance and the public's need for fairness in insurance information practices, including the need to minimize intrusiveness; to establish a regulatory mechanism to enable natural persons to ascertain what information is being or has been collected about them in connection with insurance transactions and to have access to such information for the purpose of verifying or disputing its accuracy; to limit the disclosure of information collected in connection with insurance transactions; and to enable insurance applicants and policyholders to obtain the reasons for any adverse underwriting decision." (Sec. 791.) An "[a]dverse underwriting decision" includes the declination or termination of insurance coverage (Ins. Code, § 791.02(a)(1)), and thus includes an insurer's decision to refuse to insure or to renew due to the loss history of the applicant or insured.
“Insurance Code section 791.12 sets forth prohibited grounds for an adverse underwriting decision. Section 791.12, subdivision (a) prohibits an adverse underwriting decision based on a previous adverse underwriting decision or the previous obtaining of insurance through a residual market mechanism, and new Section 791.12, subdivision (c) prohibits an adverse underwriting decision based on an inquiry that does not lead to a claim. The most pertinent prohibition is Section 791.12, subdivision (b), which prohibits basing an adverse underwriting decision:
‘On personal information received from an insurance-support organization whose primary source of information is insurance institutions; provided, however, an insurance institution or agent may base an adverse underwriting decision on further personal information obtained as the result of information received from an insurance-support organization.’”
(American Ins. Assn. v. Garamendi (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 228, 237 citing Sec. 791.12(b).)
“Personal information is defined as "any individually identifiable information gathered in connection with an insurance transaction from which judgments can be made about an individual's character, habits, avocations, finances, occupation, general reputation, credit, health, or any other personal characteristics. `Personal information' includes an individual's name and address and `medical record information' but does not include `privileged information.'" (Ins. Code, § 791.02, subd. (s).) Privileged information includes any individually identifiable information that relates to a claim for insurance benefits and is collected in connection with or in reasonable anticipation of a claim for insurance benefits. (American Ins. Assn. v. Garamendi (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 228, 237-38 citing Sec. 791.02(v).)
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.
Jan 11, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jan 10, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
Dec 28, 2018
Yolanda Orozco or Laura A. Seigle
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Dec 20, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
Dec 14, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.)”).
Dec 14, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 16, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Sep 04, 2018
Shasta County, CA
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.)
Aug 28, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
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.)
Aug 17, 2018
Sacramento County, CA
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.)
Jul 30, 2018
Robert S. Draper or Gail Ruderman Feuer
Los Angeles County, CA
Code, §§ 791.01, et seq. and 791.13 [insurance records].) Defendant has failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the requested information that overcomes plaintiff’s right to privacy. (See Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 859; see also Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 449.) A separate statement is not required when no response to a request for discovery has been provided. See, Rule 3.1345(b).
Jul 26, 2018
Orange County, CA
Code, §§ 791.01, et seq. and 791.13 [insurance records].) Defendant has failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the requested information that overcomes plaintiff’s right to privacy. (See Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 859; see also Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 449.) A separate statement is not required when no response to a request for discovery has been provided. See, Rule 3.1345(b).
Jul 26, 2018
Orange County, CA
Code, § 791 Information compiled by an insurance company is protected from disclosure as it is personal “or perhaps legally privileged as work product.” The Act strictly limits dissemination of information contained in insurance files to persons other than the insured. Insurance carriers may not disclose personal or privileged information. Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 65–66.
Jul 18, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
Code §791.01, et seq.) prohibits an insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization from disclosing any personal or privileged information about an individual collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction unless the disclosure is in response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including a search warrant or subpoena. (Ins. Code §791.13(h.)
Jul 16, 2018
Riverside County, CA
Code, § 791 Information compiled by an insurance company is protected from disclosure as it is personal “or perhaps legally privileged as work product.” The act strictly limits dissemination of information contained in insurance files to persons other than the insured. Insurance carriers may not disclose personal or privileged information. Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 65–66.
Jun 27, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)”).
Feb 16, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
“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) In adequacy [sic] of the remedy at law (infra, section 803 et seq.).” 5 Witkin, Cal.
Dec 01, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
State Farm further objects based on the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act ("IPPA"), which restricts the release of insureds' information. IPPA appears to adopt a mandatory consent requirement for release of information, while plaintiff argues for implied consent by failure to object. For the latter point, plaintiff relies on a non-insurance decision not involving IPPA. More importantly, State Farm relies upon State Farm v.
Jul 28, 2017
San Francisco County, CA
Plaintiff responds that it will not seek to introduce any excerpts unless the need arises under Evidence Code §§791(prior consistent statement of a witness) or 1236 (prior consistent statement). Under Kelly v. New West Federal Savings, the Court denies the motion without prejudice to rule once the evidence is offered and relevance and admissibility may be determined in context.
Apr 26, 2017
Employment
Other Employment
Sacramento County, CA
Plaintiff responds that it will not seek to introduce any excerpts unless the need arises under Evidence Code §§791(prior consistent statement of a witness) or 1236 (prior consistent statement). Under Kelly v. New West Federal Savings, the Court denies the motion without prejudice to rule once the evidence is offered and relevance and admissibility may be determined in context.
Apr 26, 2017
Employment
Other Employment
Sacramento County, CA
Plaintiff responds that it will not seek to introduce any excerpts unless the need arises under Evidence Code §§791(prior consistent statement of a witness) or 1236 (prior consistent statement). Under Kelly v. New West Federal Savings, the Court denies the motion without prejudice to rule once the evidence is offered and relevance and admissibility may be determined in context.
Apr 26, 2017
Employment
Other Employment
Sacramento County, CA
Attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy of Plaintiff’s claim notes redacted to protect the privacy of Plaintiff’s insured pursuant to California Government Code section 791.13 and as to any protected communications between Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.” (Reply Papers, Ex. L.) The produced document is unverified and contains several redactions. (Id.)
Mar 07, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance company files regarding an insured or claimant are protected by statute (“Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act”; Ins. C. § 791.01 et seq.). Disclosure of “any personal or privileged information gathered or received in connection with an insurance transaction” is restricted. [Ins.
Nov 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
Accordingly, the Court disregards Defendants' "reply" arguments based on their rights under the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, their assertions of attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product, their privacy rights, and the "not reasonably particularized" objection, on the ground that all such arguments have been waived. However, there is an exception to this general conclusion, which is Defendants' assertion of third party privacy rights in their Reply Brief.
Aug 31, 2016
Ventura County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
