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

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

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

JOANNE MARIE ANNUZZI ET AL VS. HENRY FONG PAN ET AL

Code section 791.13(h).) Each party's request for sanctions is DENIED. Any party who contests this tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm the court day prior to the hearing stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2015

  • Judge

    Noah Lebowitz

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

CESAR VERA VS TRAVELERS PROPERTY

Insurance Records Insurance Code section 791.13(h) contains an exception when documents are produced pursuant to a subpoena. But insurance records, like financial records, are entitled to protection. (Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 66-68.) These records, however may have information relevant to the relevant medical issues in the arbitration. Thus, Claimant's proposed limitation, which is the same as proposed for medical records, is reasonable.

  • Hearing

    Dec 31, 2014

PHILLIP LETZO ET AL VS DAVID ABRAHAM ET AL

Under the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act (Insurance Code Section 791.01 et seq.), an insurance carrier, agent, or broker is prohibited from disclosing personal or privileged information about a policyholder without the policyholder’s written consent.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2013

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DGP ASSOCIATES LP VS. AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE ET AL

Within 30 days of service of this order American Guarantee shall produce those portions of the underwriting file previously withheld on the basis of Insurance Code Section 791.13(a). The Section does not apply to information about business entities. It provides in relevant part that "[a]n insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization shall not disclose any personal or privileged information about an individual . . ." Ins. Code ? 791.13.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2013

JESSICA SHIPP VS HIUKEI LIU

Farmers did not state that it was refusing to provide information about Liu’s location because of Insurance Code section 791.13. Farmers affirmatively represented that it had no information that would be helpful to Shipp to locate Liu. Farmers did have such information, as is demonstrated by Farmers’ quick location of Liu when Shipp sought to collect the default judgment from Farmers directly.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2013

JESSICA SHIPP VS HIUKEI LIU

Farmers did not state that it was refusing to provide information about Liu’s location because of Insurance Code section 791.13. Farmers affirmatively represented that it had no information that would be helpful to Shipp to locate Liu. Farmers did have such information, as is demonstrated by Farmers’ quick location of Liu when Shipp sought to collect the default judgment from Farmers directly.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2013

PHILLIP LETZO ET AL VS DAVID ABRAHAM ET AL

Insurance Code section 791.13 is of limited application under the circumstances, and does not preclude the discovery sought. Indeed, in the Court’s experience, most insurance companies and/or agents attempt to overstate the reach of Section 791.13. Further, and while not on point factually, the California Supreme Court’s decision in Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360 is instructive with respect to third party privacy rights with respect to complaints made.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2013

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SALVADOR FALCONE VS. J.T. HARRIS INC

To the extent that defendants objections are based on Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act, they are overruled. As noted in Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 741: "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, § 791 et seq.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2011

  « first    1 2 3

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.