What is the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act?

Useful Resources for Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act

Rulings on Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act

WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC., ET AL. V. STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SERNA VS ISLANDS RESTAURANTS LP

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SERNA VS ISLANDS RESTAURANTS LP

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TANASHA TRENAE HARRIS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS LYDIA ESTHER AGUIAR, AN INDIVIDUAL

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.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2020

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

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

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

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

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.