“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).)
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.
Jul 24, 2020
Orange 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
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.)
Aug 30, 2011
Ventura 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
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.
Apr 03, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Apr 09, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles 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
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
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.)
Dec 17, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Dec 05, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
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. . . .”
Jan 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Oct 18, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
May 09, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 08, 2019
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
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.
Nov 19, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
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.
Nov 19, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
This ruling is consistent with Insurance Code section 791.13. Insurance Code section 791.13 provides: “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” in made in conformance with one of a number of enumerated categories. There are 19 separately enumerated categories for which disclosure is permitted.
Dec 23, 2020
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
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.
Mar 03, 2020
Los Angeles 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
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
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
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.
Oct 16, 2015
Noah Lebowitz
San Francisco County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
