What is the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act?

Useful Resources for Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act

Recent Rulings on Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act

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

HARRISON V. ACAMPORA TENTATIVE RULING POSTED BY THE TEMPORARY JUDGE

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).

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

HARRISON V. ACAMPORA TENTATIVE RULING POSTED BY THE TEMPORARY JUDGE

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).

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

JOSE SANCHEZ ELIZONDO VS GARY MITCHELL HELLERSTEIN

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

LIBORIO VS CLOSE

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2018

JOSE SANCHEZ ELIZONDO VS GARY MITCHELL HELLERSTEIN

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

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

    Feb 16, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE VONS COMPANIES, INC. VS. ALTON PLAZA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

“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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHN MARK CHARNON VS. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2017

DENISE ANDERSON VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVESITY OF CALIFORNIA

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DENISE ANDERSON VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVESITY OF CALIFORNIA

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DENISE ANDERSON VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVESITY OF CALIFORNIA

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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY VS BRASSCRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY

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.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

O’GRADY VS. STRICKLAND

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2016

MORALES VS WELL-PICT

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2016

  « first    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.