Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) in California

What Is the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA)?

There is an Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) (Ins. Code ยง 790, et seq.). But there is no private civil cause of action against an insurer under UIPA. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies, 46 Cal.3d 287, 304 (1988).

However, โ€œMoradi-Shalal does not bar the claim under the UCL.โ€ (Zhang v. Superior Court (2010) 178 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1085.) โ€œWe have made it clear that while a plaintiff may not use the UCL to โ€˜plead aroundโ€™ an absolute bar to relief, the UIPA does not immunize insurers from UCL liability for conduct that violates other laws in addition to the UIPA.โ€ (Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 257, 283-284; see also Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 182-183; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43; Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 565.)

โ€œ[T]he UCL, in Business and Professions Code ยง 17200, defines "unfair competition" to include "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business" acts or practices, and "unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising." There can be no doubt that false advertising is a recognized basis for suit under the UCL both expressly as provided in the statutes and in case law. (Zhang v. Superior Court (2010)178 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1089 citing Shersher v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1494-1496; Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 115, 132-133 (finding allegations insufficient); Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 663, 679; Belton v. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1241.) โ€œThe same is true for fraud.โ€ (Id. citing McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1471.) โ€œNo reason appears why an insurance company should not be subject to similar liability under the UCL if false advertising or similar misrepresentations can be proved.โ€ Id.

โ€œThus, in Progressive West Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 263, the court โ€” also dealing with a demurrer โ€” analyzed the pleading separately with respect to the sufficiency in alleging UCL unfair business practices, unlawful business practices, and fraudulent business practices.โ€ (Zhang v. Superior Court at 1089.) โ€œAlthough it acknowledged some doubt as to whether the alleged conduct qualified as โ€˜unfair,โ€™ it had no difficulty finding that the plaintiff could maintain the UCL claim against the defendant insurer with respect to fraudulent conduct.โ€ (Id.) โ€œWe agree with the approach in Progressive West, and to the extent that Textron Financial is inconsistent, we disagree.โ€ (Id.)

Statue of Limitations

Under Insurance Code ยง 1871.1(l)(1), asserting a violation of this section โ€œmay not be filed more than three years after the discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for commencing the action.โ€

Statute of limitations for claims under Insurance Code ยง 1871.7 begins running when the plaintiff becomes aware of circumstances that lead the plaintiff to reasonably suspect a factual basis for wrongdoing, thus putting the plaintiff on inquiry notice of the claim. (State of California ex rel. Metz v. CCC Information Services Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 402, 417.)

Rulings for Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) in California

Cross-defendants assert that the UCL causes of action are defective as a matter of law because the conduct complained of is governed by Californiaโ€™s Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โ€œUIPAโ€) (Insurance Code ยง790 et seq.) and in Moradi-Shalal v. Firemanโ€™s Fund Insurance Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 304 the California Supreme Court held that the UIPA does not create a private cause of action against insurers who violate its provisions. See, Hadland v.

  • Name

    PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY CASES

  • Case No.

    CORD4612

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2012

790.03 and Bus. & Prof. Code ? 17200. However, no private right of action exists for violation of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), and enforcement powers are vested exclusively in the Insurance Commissioner. Moradi Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. (1988), 46 Cal.3d 287, 304. Thus, plaintiff is given leave to amend to state allegations necessary to plead a claim for violation of the UCL. Plaintiff must also state facts necessary to plead elder abuse.

  • Name

    CONNIE H. SEBASTIAN VS. SURETY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    CGC13529155

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2013

ยฟยฟInsurance Code section 790.03 is found in the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โ€œUIPAโ€). โ€œThe UIPA's operative provision is section 790.02, which states: โ€˜No person shall engage in this State in any trade practice which is defined in this article as, or determined pursuant to this article to be, an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance.โ€™

  • Name

    ANTHONY XEPOLIS VS TOKIO MARINE AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    20STCV15995

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

So, the violations Plaintiff alleges are not based on grounds "independent from" section 790.03.

  • Name

    MICHAEL COLLINS VS. INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB

  • Case No.

    56-2014-00456956-CU-IC-VTA

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2015

While the opposition cites to the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), the complaint itself lacks any such reference, and otherwise just provides a reiterated list of the conduct leading to the denial of the claim, plus the addition of a serious accusation of systematic ethnic discrimination. While such a charge and violation of the UIPA can support a claim under the unlawful practice standard, the allegations in and of themselves lack specific facts regarding any basis for this conclusion . ( Zhang v.

  • Name

    ANI SOGHOMONYAN VS TOPA INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00202

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Private UIPA actions are absolutely barred; a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim. (Celโ€“Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 182โ€“183, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 548, 973 P.2d 527; Manufacturers Life, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 283โ€“284, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 220, 895 P.2d 56; Moradiโ€“Shalal, at p. 304, 250 Cal.Rptr. 116, 758 P.2d 58.)

  • Name

    BARRA V. VIKING

  • Case No.

    16CV-0619

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2017

Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, the California Supreme Court held that a third party may not sue a tortfeasor's insurer under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โ€œUIPA,โ€ Ins. Code ยงยง 790, et. seq.) for the tort of bad faith claims handling practices. Enforcement of the UIPA rests exclusively with the Insurance Commissioner, so neither the insured nor a third party may bring an action against the insurer for violation of the UIPA. (Moradi-Shalal, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 313.)

  • Name

    LEONEL ORTEGA V. SENTRY INSURANCE A MUTUAL COMPANY

  • Case No.

    17CECG00251

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2017

Ryan first argues that this cause of action is improperly premised on the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Insurance Code section 790.03 (UIPA). Plaintiffs argue that their UCL is premised upon a violation of Penal Code section 550, subdivision (b). (Complaint, ยถ 36.) Ryan argues that all of the alleged bad acts are covered within section 790.03 and so are not actionable. The California Supreme Court effectively rejected Ryanโ€™s first argument in Yanting Zhang v.

  • Name

    LORNA MOORE ET AL VS AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    17CV01780

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2017

Conduct Based on Violation of UIPA Colony argues that this cause of action fails because it is an impermissible attempt to plead around the holding of the landmark case Moradi-Shalal v. Firemanโ€™s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 304 which held that the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โ€œUIPAโ€) does not create a private cause of action for commission of the various unfair practices listed in Insurance Code section 790.03. (Dem. at 4.) Colony is partly correct.

  • Name

    KONSTANTINOS KAPNISIS VS COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV13764

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

) [6] On the face page of the FAC , Plaintiff captions this cause of action as Violation of Unfair Insurance Practices Act and Insurance Code 785, 790. In the body of the FAC, however, Plaintiff identifies the cause of action as Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: violation of Unfair Business Practices Act, Ins. Code 785 and 790.

  • Name

    NEIL H. COGAN VS AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV20030

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

However, โ€œPrivate UIPA actions are absolutely barred; a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim.โ€ (Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 384.) The Cohansโ€™ FAC largely argues that their cause of action under the UCL is based on violations of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โ€œUIPAโ€), Insurance Code section 790.03. (FAC ยถ 55.) As State Farm argues, and the Court agrees, UCL claims may not be based on violations of UIPA. (Zhang v.

  • Name

    PERRY COHAN, ET AL. VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    19STCV12696

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2019

While a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a[n] [unfair competition] claim[,] a plaintiff may allege an unfair competition cause of action against an insurer that has engaged in conduct that violates both the Unfair Insurance Practices Act and obligations imposed by other statutes or common law. ( Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 384.)

  • Name

    ROYA RANJBARI VS LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV35158

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Damages for Violation of Insurance Code Section 790.03 State Farm contends that Plaintiff has no right to damages under Insurance Code section 790.03 because that section does not provide a private right of action. State Farm is correct. (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 (holding that Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โ€œUIPAโ€) (Ins.

  • Name

    EDDIE ELLOIE VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    19STCV15754

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2019

Parties are not precluded from bringing โ€œfirst party UCL actions based on grounds independent from section 790.03, even when the insurerโ€™s conduct also violates section 790.03โ€ and a claim of โ€œinsurance bad faith โ€ฆ provide[s] [a] ground for a UCL claim independent from the [Unfair Insurance Practices Act].โ€ (Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 369.)

  • Name

    VENEGAS, ET AL. V. GEICO INS. AGENCY, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS052923

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2020

Title 10 ยง2695.7) and California Insurance Code 790.03(h) and Plaintiffs claims of discrimination based on race, color, ancestry, national origin, or primary language . (4AC ยถยถ82-83). A private party cannot bring an unfair competition claim based on the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) set forth in Insurance Code 790.03, et seq. Zhang (2013) 57 C4th 364, 368, 384. California Code of Regulations, Title 10, ยง2695.7 is a derivative of Insurance Code 790.03(h).

  • Name

    HEATHER CHO, ET AL. VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    21CHCV00312

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Parties are not precluded from bringing โ€œfirst party UCL actions based on grounds independent from section 790.03, even when the insurerโ€™s conduct also violates section 790.03โ€ and a claim of โ€œinsurance bad faith โ€ฆ provide[s] [a] ground for a UCL claim independent from the [Unfair Insurance Practices Act].โ€ (Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 369.) Defendantโ€™s answer shall be filed within 20 days.

  • Name

    VENEGAS, ET AL. V. GEICO INS. AGENCY, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    FCS052923

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2020

To support their cause of action, plaintiffs cite to Insurance Code ยง 790.03 and the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations, which impose specific claims handling requirements on insurers (collectively, the โ€œUnfair Insurance Practices Act,โ€ or โ€œUIPAโ€). Plaintiffs, however, have done nothing more than recite the language of Insurance Code ยง 790.03 when asserting facts supporting their third cause of action. Chermakโ€™s discovery responses are similar. (UMF Nos. 35, 36, 39 and 40).

  • Name

    DAVID LAWRENCE CHERMAK VS WILLIAM JOSEPH BAER

  • Case No.

    KC068634

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2018

UCL Claim (3rd COA) โ€“ Defendants demur to the UCL claim in the 3rd COA, arguing that there is no private right of action under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and a UIPA claim cannot be reframed as a UCL claim. This overlooks case law which recognizes that a UCL claim may be premised upon an insurance companyโ€™s bad faith practices. See Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364. Because the 2nd COA is sufficient, so is the 3rd COA. This ground is overruled.

  • Name

    GARY MADDOCK ET AL VS CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO

  • Case No.

    BC659212

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2018

Companies (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 287, 304], the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff may not seek damages against an insurer under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) ( Ins. Code, ยง 790 et seq.) because the UIPA does not allow for a private right of action for damages.... Subsequent cases have held that a plaintiff cannot plead around the bar to private causes of action under the UIPA by recasting his or her suit as one under the UCL. (See, e.g., Safeco Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 216 Cal.

  • Name

    RAMIREZ-CENICEROS VS. PACIFIC SPECIALTY

  • Case No.

    MSC15-01829

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2018

Defendant quotes only the passage stating that a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim. ( Id. at 384.) But Amguard omits the essential point in the next two sentences: However, when insurers engage in conduct that violates both the UIPA and obligations imposed by other statutes or the common law, a UCL action may lie. The Legislature did not intend the UIPA to operate as a shield against any civil liability.

  • Name

    AFZALI FAMILY TRUST VS BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV46149

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Private UIPA actions are absolutely barred; a litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim. (Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 182โ€“183; Manufacturers Life, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pp. 283โ€“284; Moradi-Shalal, at p. 304.) However, when insurers engage in conduct that violates both the UIPA and obligations imposed by other statutes or the common law, a UCL action may lie. The Legislature did not intend the UIPA to operate as a shield against any civil liability.

  • Name

    KONSTANTINOS KAPNISIS VS COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV13764

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

But the California Supreme Court has held that UIPA does not create a private cause of action. ( M o radi-Shalal , 46 Cal.3d at 304 ([n]either section 790.03 nor section 790.09 was intended to create a private civil cause of action against an insurer that commits one of the various acts listed in section 790.03 subdivision (h).) ) A plaintiff cannot bootstrap an alleged violation of the UIPA onto the UCL in order to create a private right of action. ( Safeco Ins. Co. o f America v.

  • Name

    RAYMOND SARRAF VS THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22SMCV02706

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Code ยงยง 790 et seq. or the regulations promulgated under ยงยง 790 et seq., citing to, inter alia, Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 292 and Zhang v. Sup. Ct. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 384. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that a fair reading of these cases only bar specific causes of action under Ins. Code ยงยง 790 et seq. or breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant causes of action based solely on alleged violations of ยง 790 et seq. or the regulations thereto.

  • Name

    SINGH VS STERLING CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    RG19034122

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

Codeโ€) ยง 790.03 subd. (h) and corresponding regulations in Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations, ยง 2695.1 et seq . The Court notes, as an initial matter, that private causes of action under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (โ€œUIPAโ€) are absolutely barred and โ€œa litigant may not rely on the proscriptions of section 790.03 as the basis for a UCL claim. [Citations.]

  • Name

    BABAK PANAHPOUR VS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV34115

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

The Court resolved a split of between the courts of appeal with respect to the availability of Unfair Business Practices claims in insurance bad faith actions and held that insurance practices that violate the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) can support a UCL action, and that, UIPA does not immunize insurers from UCL liability for conduct that violates other laws in addition to the UIPA. Zhang, at 368.

  • Name

    ARAM TERMARTIROSYAN VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    22GDCV00064

  • Hearing

    May 27, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Seventh COA: Unfair Competition: OVERRULED Defendant argues plaintiffsโ€™ UCL claim is barred as a matter of law because plaintiffs lack standing and under case law interpreting the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), codified under the Insurance Code. In opposition, plaintiffs argue they have standing because they lost money from defendantโ€™s denial of their claim.

  • Name

    CHRISTOPHER AND TERESA DION VS CENTURY-NATIONAL INSURANCE CO

  • Case No.

    BC627381

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2016

The creation of section 790.03(h) did nothing either to expand or restrict the preexisting common law right of action; the limitation of the utilization of section 790.03 to governmental entities should similarly have no effect upon the common law private right of action.

  • Name

    TIMOTHY CURRY VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    20PSCV00198

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

  • Judge

    Gloria White-Brown

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

(Perry) (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790 (hereinafter, โ€œColonialโ€); see also Mercury Interactive Corp. v.

  • Name

    UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA

  • Case No.

    18CV322879

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

(Perry) (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790 (hereinafter, โ€œColonialโ€); see also Mercury Interactive Corp. v.

  • Name

    UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA

  • Case No.

    18CV322879

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

The court agreed that cross-complainants could not state a claim under Business and Professions Code section 17200 because California law precluded such an action where the underlying conduct was a violation of Californiaโ€™s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Insurance Code section 790 et seq. The demurrers were sustained with leave to amend. Cross-complainants have now filed their first amended cross-complaints alleging essentially the same claims under Connecticut law.

  • Name

    PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY CASES

  • Case No.

    CORD4612

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2012

Plaintiffโ€™s allegations in paragraphs 10-14, and 23-24 directly support a claim for unfair practices under Insurance Code section 790.03, subdivision (h).To the extent that these causes of action are based on Insurance Code section 790.03, Plaintiff cannot relabel their private cause of action for unfair practices under Insurance Code section 790.03 as โ€œWrongful Handling and Reckless, Willful, and Malicious Failure to Exercise Due Careโ€ to get around Moradai-Shalalโ€™s holding.

  • Name

    PHAT MINH NGUYEN VS ALLIANCE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    19STCV44889

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

Insurance Practices Act (โ€œUIPAโ€) to support a UCL claim.

  • Name

    HUSSEIN ALI VS. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    21CECG00725

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2022

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

[9] The UIPA was enacted to regulate trade practices in the business of insurance by defining and prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. [10] For this reason, any discussion of cases that discuss Insurance Code sections are inapplicable as the court is bound by the pleadings on a demurrer and the complaint does not allege violations of Insurance Code Section 790.03.

  • Name

    AIDA ORIBIO ITURBE VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV01661

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE AMENDMENT MUST SPELL OUT THE MANDATORY DUTIES THE COMMISSIONER ALLEGEDLY HAS FAILED TO PERFORM AND MUST ALLEGE FACTS THAT ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER INSURANCE CODE SECTION 790.03 AND 10291.5. =(302/PJM/AY)

  • Name

    FARHAD S MAHJOURI VS. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC07461992

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2007

THE AMENDMENT MUST SPELL OUT THE MANDATORY DUTIES THE COMMISSIONER ALLEGEDLY HAS FAILED TO PERFORM AND MUST ALLEGE FACTS THAT ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER INSURANCE CODE SECTION 790.03 AND 10291.5. =(302/PJM/AY)

  • Name

    ELIZABETH SQUIERS MD VS. UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC07462326

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2007

section 2695.183 provides: โ€œTo communicate an estimate of replacement value not comporting with subdivisions (a) through (e) of this Section 2695.183 to an applicant or insured in connection with an application for or renewal of a homeowners' insurance policy that provides coverage on a replacement cost basis constitutes making a statement with respect to the business of insurance which is misleading and which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known to be misleading, pursuant to Insurance Code section 790.03

  • Name

    MATTER OF HERBERT FLEMING AND GENEVIEVE M. FLEMING TRUST

  • Case No.

    SPR-091075

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2018

  • Judge

    Renรฉ Auguste Chouteau

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

Here, Halbleib seeks leave to add a thirteenth cause of action for violation of Insurance Code ยง790.03(h). But the California Supreme Court has ruled that there is no private right of action under that statute. Moradi-Shalal v. Firemanโ€™s Fund Insurance Companies (1988) 46 Cal.App.3rd 287, 304. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

  • Name

    CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE VS. KATHRYN F. HALBLEIB

  • Case No.

    MSC15-00894

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2016

Code ยง790.03(h) and 10 CCR ยง2695.1 et seq.

  • Name

    SERAFINA ROMERO VS. LAWRENCE MONTGOMERY

  • Case No.

    19CECG02939

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2022

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

Plaintiff may not rely on Insurance Code 790.03 to plead a cause of action under B & P Code 17200. AICCO, Inc. v Insurance Co. of North America (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 579, 596-597. The 6th cause of action makes clear that the policy did not provide wrongful eviction coverage and so there is no covenant to breach. Plaintiff does not oppose the demurrer to the 7th cause of action for reformation. A negligence claim cannot be based on the facts alleged. Brown v. Guarantee Ins. Co. (1957) 155 Cal.

  • Name

    NIMER MASSIS ET AL VS. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC07465350

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2008

The Court held, in part, that the agent owed the insureds a statutory duty under Insurance Code sections 780, 781 and 790.03. Thus, section 790.03, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will serve to establish and define the statutory duty owed by an insurance agent to the insured. In this action, it is undisputed that Johnson & Wood was a "licensee" as this term is defined. See 10 C.C.R. 2695.2(m) and Separate Statement no. 15. It is also undisputed that Endurance is an "insurer."

  • Name

    ENDURANCE AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00028446-CU-IC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2018

In his Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the cause of action is premised on Defendants breach of its duties under Insurance Code ยง 790.03. Insurance Code section 790.03 defines certain conduct as unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance. There is no private right of action under section 790.03, with enforcement limited to administrative proceedings carried out by the Insurance Commissioner. ( Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins.

  • Name

    LEV HAKAK VS INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB

  • Case No.

    21STCV47417

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2022

Her subsequent complaint against defendant insurer asserted statutory violations (CCP section 790.03) for the defendant insurers refusal to settle her claim promptly and fairly against the insured. The Royal Globe court concluded that a joint lawsuit against both the insured for negligence and insurer for violating its duties under section 790.03 is improper.

  • Name

    YONGJIA CHEN, ET AL. VS YILIN YAO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV13326

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On 08/20/18, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against defendant for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) violation of Business & Professions Code ยง 17200; (5) violation of Insurance Code section 790.03, 10082.3 and 2071; and (6) declaratory relief. ANALYSIS: โ€œIf plaintiff amends the complaint before the demurrer hearing, the hearing goes off calendar.โ€

  • Name

    JEWEBLER INC VS CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON

  • Case No.

    BC696111

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2018

Moreover, in response to Defendantโ€™s argument that Plaintiff has simply omitted reference to the Unfair Insurance Practice Act (โ€œUIPAโ€) and alleged a UIPA violation under the label of a UCL violation, Zhang expressly approves such a procedure, so long as the conduct alleged also violates some statute other than the UIPA. (Id. at 382-384.) Here, Defendantโ€™s alleged conduct also violates other sections of the Insurance Code and common-law bad faith principles.

  • Name

    640 CENTER, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UIC-2019-0010757

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

Third Cause of Action โ€“ Unfair Business Practices Plaintiff alleges that Defendantโ€™s unlawful conduct in violation of Business & Professions Code ยง17200 includes violations of California Insurance Code ยง790.03(b). However, ยง790.03 does not create a private civil cause of action and plaintiff cannot plead around that limitation by relying on conduct in violation of ยง790.03 as the basis for a claim under the UCL. (Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 257, 283.)

  • Name

    FARZIN NASSIR VS FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC602068

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2017

โ€œFor a number of years, California courts recognized a separate basis for extracontractual recovery based on insurer violations of the Unfair [Insurance] Practices Act.โ€ (Croskey, CPG: Insurance Litigation (TRG 2021) ยง12:23 citing, Ins. Code ยง790, et. seq.; particularly ยง790.03(h).) โ€œThe California Supreme Court held that the Unfair Practices Act impliedly authorized a direct action against insurers by victims of unfair claims settlement practices.โ€ (Id. at ยง12:24 citing, Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct.

  • Name

    GOTSCHALL VS MITCHELL

  • Case No.

    RIC2001616

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2021

A joint trial against the insured for negligence and against the insurer for violating its duties under [Insurance Code ยง 790.03] subdivision (h) would obviously violate both the letter and spirit of the section.โ€ ( Royal Globe Insurance Company v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880 (overruled on other grounds by Moradi-Shalal v. Firemanโ€™s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 56 Cal.3d 287).

  • Name

    EFSHALIM TOMEH VS SAN DIMAS GRAIN CO., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV28357

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

A joint trial against the insured for negligence and against the insurer for violating its duties under [Insurance Code ยง 790.03] subdivision (h) would obviously violate both the letter and spirit of the section.โ€ ( Royal Globe Insurance Company v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880 (overruled on other grounds by Moradi-Shalal v. Firemanโ€™s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 56 Cal.3d 287).

  • Name

    EFSHALIM TOMEH VS SAN DIMAS GRAIN CO., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV28357

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Code] section 790.03, even when the insurer's conduct also violates section 790.03,โ€ discussed both the UCL in general and the limitations under Moradi-Shalal and its progeny in explaining its conclusions. The long, detailed explanation provides a thorough discussion of the courtโ€™s view on UCL, or claims for unfair business practices, under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500.

  • Name

    WESTFALL VS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    SCV-263302

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

Defendants also argue that Remington cannot be liable for violation of Insurance Code section 790.03 as he is not a โ€œbusiness of insurance.โ€ ((See Ins. Code, ยง 790.03.) Though not specifically raised by Defendants, presumably the argument would also be that Remington is not subject to a claim for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 because he, as an agent of Western, cannot have committed unfair business practices.

  • Name

    HAROUTUN KARATAVUKY ET AL VS WESTERN GENERAL INS CO ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC704967

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2018

There is an Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Ins. Code ยง 790, et seq.). But there is no private civil cause of action against an insurer under that statute. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies, 46 Cal.3d 287, 304 (1988). In the complaint, plaintiff cites Ins. Code ยง 1631, which requires that insurance brokers and agents be licensed. Any person who transacts insurance without a valid license so to act is guilty of a misdemeanor. Ins. Code ยง 1633.

  • Name

    KENNETH FARMER VS ESPERANZA MENDOZA, ET AL

  • Case No.

    1439202

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2015

Code ยง790.03, since there is no private right of action for alleged violations of that statute prior to the insured being found liable. Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 287, 313. The case of Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 364, 369, does not apply to this case, which is brought by a third party claimant.

  • Name

    GKBH RESTAURANT, LLC VS. KIM

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00938718-CU-CO-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2017

Code ยงยง 790.03, 10082.3, and 2071; and (6) Declaratory Relief. ANALYSIS: Defendant IJU demurs to each cause of action in the complaint. Much of Defendantโ€™s demurrer turns on whether an insurance broker is subject to the same claims as the insurance provider (the other defendants). At no point in the complaint, however, is IJU actually identified as an insurance broker. This information therefore goes beyond the scope of the FAC, and is not considered.

  • Name

    JEWEBLER INC VS CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON

  • Case No.

    BC696111

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2019

Code ยง 790.03 are moot.

  • Name

    STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS CITY OF RIVERSIDE

  • Case No.

    CVRI2200057

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2022

Nor does the allegation that Defendant American Family violated Insurance Code section 790.03(f) support this cause of action. There is no private right of action for an alleged violation of the Insurance Code. ( Moradi-Shalal v. Firemans Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 303-304; Coleman v. Republic Indemnity Ins. Co. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 403, 415.)

  • Name

    LOUIS ASHODIAN VS ADDISON CULLEY

  • Case No.

    21STCV02462

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, the case is distinguishable because it was based on a private right of action by an insured under Insurance Code ยง 790.03(h) prior to the decision in Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 292, in which such a private right of action was eliminated. "Colonial Life has been followed, however, by California state courts considering not only claims under ยง 790.03 of the Insurance Code but also common law 'bad faith' claims."

  • Name

    CUCICEA VS AAA INSURANCE

  • Case No.

    HG20054759

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2021

Code] section 790.03, even when the insurer's conduct also violates section 790.03,โ€ discussed both the UCL in general and the limitations under Moradi-Shalal and its progeny in explaining its conclusions. The long, detailed explanation provides a thorough discussion of the courtโ€™s view on UCL, or claims for unfair business practices, under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500.

  • Name

    SCOTT V. FIRE UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    SCV-263319

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2019

As Defendants note, Plaintiffs cannot premise a UCL claim on violation of Insurance Code ยง790.03 (and particularly ยง790.03(h)(3)). Bates v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co. (C.D. Cal. 2011) 765 .Supp.2s 1218, 1221.

  • Name

    WUN-LING CHANG, M.D., INC. VS BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV02777

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

Further, there is no private right of action for violation of Insurance Code section 790.03. (See Reid v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 262, 276.) Under this analysis, none of the allegedly disputed facts are material.

  • Name

    IDS VS. RUTHNICK

  • Case No.

    MSC13-02430

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2016

Code ยงยง 790.03, 10082.3, and 2071 First, Ins. Code ยง 790.03 lists numerous acts that insurance companies are prohibited from engaging in. The California Supreme Court has recently reiterated, however, that no private right of action exists under that statute, whether directly or as a predicate for a UCL claim; rather the Insurance Commissioner is tasked with enforcing its requirements. (See Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364.)

  • Name

    JEWEBLER INC VS CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON

  • Case No.

    BC696111

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2019

Moving Defendants are not alleged to be insurers per 20 CCR section 2695.9 or the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Ins. Code section 790.03. Further, there are insufficient facts to support the allegation that CRSC Defendants misrepresented their qualifications, as will be discussed below. Accordingly, Moving Defendantsโ€™ demurrers are SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to this cause.

  • Name

    SUSAN FISHMAN, ET AL. VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV42542

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

CIGA's Immunity From Tort Liability Plaintiffs argue CIGA is liable for compensatory and punitive damages under three tort theories: violation of the Unfair Practices Act (ยง 790 et [*784] seq.), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and common law breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Name

    GABRIELLE A PEDONE VS SHANT ALBERT OURFALIAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC718101

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2018

Code, ยงยง 790.03 and 790.09 create private cause of action against insurer for bad faith refusal to settle claim]. Although the Court is not confident that plaintiff can successfully amend in light of the fundamental nature of the pleading defects, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

  • Name

    JOHN BROSNAN VS. CLARISSA MIYAMOTO

  • Case No.

    MSC19-01048

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2022

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Specifically, Storeleeโ€™s reliance on Doctors is misplaced because its holding is particularized to the requirements of Insurance Code section 790.03. Plaintiff does not allege a cause of action for violation of Insurance Code section 790.03 against Storelee. Additionally, Storeleeโ€™s reliance on Henry is misplaced because the court in Henry found that it was permissible to bring tort claims against insurers.

  • Name

    RENELDORE EDMONSON VS PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV17350

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

Code, ยง 790 et seq.). (Id. at 304-306 [overruling its previous opinion in Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880].) Therefore, Plaintiffโ€™s claim against Allstate for violation of Insurance Code section 790.03 fails as a matter of law. Plaintiff offers no response in opposition. Accordingly, Allstateโ€™s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave in its entirety.

  • Name

    MARK PROCESS VS RICHARD RAWLINGS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV16837

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

Plaintiff also asserts that defendant violated Insurance Code ยง 790.03(h) by failing to promptly investigate and process her claim. As a private litigant, plaintiff may not assert a cause of action based on Insurance Code ยง 790.03. ( Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 304.)

  • Name

    MICHELLE CADWELL VS WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    21STCV20524

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff is awarded $790 in reasonable attorneysโ€™ fees and costs as sanctions to be paid by Defendant in 60 days. Prevailing party to prepare the order after hearing and notice of entry of order.

  • Name

    JONES V. TABANAN

  • Case No.

    FCS050260

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

Plaintiff alleges a bad faith claim against defendants pursuant to Insurance Code section 790.03 based on defendantsโ€™ alleged failure to perform contractual obligations in good faith. However, as set forth above, plaintiff fails to properly allege the existence of a written contract, including the terms of the policy that have allegedly been breached. It appears to the court that plaintiff can amend the complaint to properly allege the existence of a written contract. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend.

  • Name

    COSTA, KEVIN VS. STEWART TITLE OF PLACER

  • Case No.

    S-CV-0041095

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2018

[In Geraci], although plaintiffโ€™s causes of action were not couched in terms of violations of section 790.03 the conduct of which she complains stems from defendantsโ€™ claims-handling practices. Thus, they should be governed by Royal Globe.โ€ (Geraci, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1253.)

  • Name

    KENNETH GILCHRIST ET AL VS WILLIAM STAFFORD ET AL

  • Case No.

    1413879

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2013

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

Superior Court, supra, 57 Cal.4th at 368 (โ€œwhile a plaintiff may not use the UCL to โ€˜plead aroundโ€™ an absolute bar to relief, the UIPA does not immunize insurers from UCL liability for conduct that violates other laws in addition to the UIPA.โ€) Accordingly, based on the courtโ€™s findings with respect to plaintiffsโ€™ fifth cause of action for violation of the CFIL, plaintiffs are also entitled to summary adjudication of the seventh cause of action as to defendants U.S. Cryotherapy and Kevin Kramer.

  • Name

    COAST CRYO, INC. ET AL VS. U.S CRYOTHERAPY FRANCHISING, LLC

  • Case No.

    S-CV-0039911

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2019

Petitioner State Bar has now represented that the remaining 790 client files from the law practice of Amy Lynn Spencer do not relate to criminal or probate matters, or involve any original wills or trusts. Hence petitioner State Bar is authorized to have these 790 unclaimed client files shredded in a commercially reasonable manner.

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OF LAW PRACTICE OF AMY LYNN SPENCER

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00869786-CU-PT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Apr 06, 2018

Code, ยง 790 et seq.] requires insurers โ€œto attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear.โ€ (Ins. Code, ยง 790.03, subd. (h)(5).) However, no private action is created thereby; the enforcement power rests exclusively with the Insurance Commissioner. Therefore neither the insured, nor a third-party with a claim against the insured, can sue the insurer for violating this statute. (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins.

  • Name

    WINDFIELD V. ROBERTS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    16CECG00160

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2017

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION โ€“ BAD FAITH LEGAL STANDARDS While not provided in the Complaint, Plaintiffsโ€™ opposition argues Insurance Code section 790.03(h) as grounds for this cause of action. (Opp. 9:10-22.)

  • Name

    CARLENE CHANDLER ET AL. VS OLD REPUBLIC TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UIC-2022-0010104

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2023

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

GRANT sanctions in the amount of $790 payable within 30 days. Prevailing party to give notice.

  • Name

    STEVENS VS. ELITE ARBOR

  • Case No.

    MCC1701181

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2018

  • Judge

    Raquel A. Marquez

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

To the extent Plaintiff can allege a UCL violation that is not solely based on violation of Insurance Code section 790.03, Defendantโ€™s demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

  • Name

    MICHELLE GNANAKONE VS WAWANESA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    BC706221

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2019

Sanctions $790 payable forthwith.

  • Name

    PARKER VS MERCURY INSURANCE

  • Case No.

    RIC1906058

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2022

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Matter on calendar for Friday, January 11, 2013, Line 10, DEFENDANTs VALERIE LEE, 790 POTRERO, LLC, KEVIN LEE's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Off calendar. Dismissal of the entire action filed on November 19, 2012. =(302/MJM)

  • Name

    GEROME HAMMOND ET AL VS. VALERIE LEE ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC11511741

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2013

Cross-Complainant Christopher Glenn Beckom is to pay moving party sanctions in the amount of $790 ($350 X 2 + $90 costs).

  • Name

    HENRY VS. BECKOM

  • Case No.

    RIC1818455

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2019

Co. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 784, 790.) The preliminary report does not contain an arbitration cause, so the issue is whether the arbitration clause in the issued CLTA policy was sufficiently incorporated into the preliminary report by reference.

  • Name

    CHRIS KLEVELAND V. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    1167727

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2005

At most, Plaintiffs rely on Insurance Code, ยง 790.03, which is regarding unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance. However, Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts that they had a preexisting relationship with Defendant or its insurance agents, or that Defendant was an entity that owed insurance obligations to Plaintiffs.

  • Name

    MAX BARCHICHAT VS SMART & FINAL STORES LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23BBCV00456

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SANCTIONS OF $790 TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST GREG MCCORD. =(302/LMG)

  • Name

    MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY VS. KEVIN D. CARROLL ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC10503318

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2011

The court approves the sale of 790 Stony Brook St., Simi Valley, and the sale of the two vacant lots in Camden, Missouri. The proceeds from the sale of 2606 Wheatfield Cir., Simi Valley, CA, should be transferred to the Butcher Family Trust along with any gains or losses associated with investment of (or interest received upon) those funds since the $250,411.21 check was issued on May 19, 2015.

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF DAWN BUTCHER

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00501163-PR-CP-OXN

  • Hearing

    Aug 21, 2018

Blackburn (attorney for Bruce Goss) was served with the motion at โ€œ790 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 280, Pasadena, California 91101.โ€ However, Mr. Blackburnโ€™s correct address is โ€œ709โ€ and not โ€œ790.โ€ Based on the unopposed nature of this motion, it appears that the motion was not properly noticed on Defendant/Cross-Complainant Bruce Goss. RULING: The Court will continue the motion in order for Plaintiff to properly serve Defendant with this motion and provide an opportunity for Defendant to oppose the motion.

  • Name

    JACQUELINE CORCORAN VS. BRUCE GOSS

  • Case No.

    GC050128

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2018

Sanctions in the amount of $790 to be paid by Plaintiff to Defendants within 15 days of entry of this order. = (302/LMG)

  • Name

    LISA M. YAKOVICH VS. FANNIE SIU ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC10501950

  • Hearing

    Feb 17, 2011

Plaintiff to pay defendant $790 within 15 days of notice of entry of order. = (302/LMG)

  • Name

    MATTHEW ENGELN VS. JESSICA WISE ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC10497902

  • Hearing

    Mar 25, 2011

In its fourth cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the UCL by violating Insurance Code ยงยง 790.03, et seq. (Compl., ยถยถ 56-57.) As a result, Plaintiff has suffered monetary and property loss and โ€œis entitled to recover retroactive rent; restitution; reimbursement for property damage; reimbursement for loss of business income; an award of attorneyโ€™s fees as permitted by law; and an award of costs.โ€ (Compl., ยถยถ 61-63.)

  • Name

    W & G FASHION CLOTHING, INC. VS THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

  • Case No.

    20STCV30332

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

s Request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $790. = (501/CEAK)

  • Name

    JONG B. LEE VS. CATHERINE J. KOSTLAN ET AL

  • Case No.

    CUD11637395

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2011

Grant as to special and form interrogatories, request for production of documents and request for admission plus sanctions of $790 fees and costs. = (501/REQ)

  • Name

    DAVID MOSCONE ET AL VS. JOI FULLER ET AL

  • Case No.

    CUD12640889

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2012

GRANT Victoria Labayโ€™s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 21-23 and 35โ€”Defendant is ordered to produce verified further responses within 20 DAYS; GRANT the request for sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $790, payable within 30 DAYS. 3. Moving party to give notice.

  • Name

    LABAY VS. MANOR CARE

  • Case No.

    MCC1700863

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2018

  • Judge

    Raquel A. Marquez

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

(Covenant Care, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 790.)

  • Name

    MARCIA BRANAGAN VS. LOS ROBLES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    56-2009-00335920-CU-MM-SIM

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2009

App. 3d 786, 790.) If the proponent attempts to illicit privileged information, the deponent may object at that time. (Ibid.) Because the issue raised by the Court of Appeal involves Carachureโ€™s actual consent to the settlement agreement, rather than solely her mental capacity, the medical records are not likely to be sufficient.

  • Name

    CARACHURE VS SCOTT

  • Case No.

    RIC1309555

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2016

Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th. 771, 790; Country Villa Claremont Healthcare Center v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 426, 433-434.)

  • Name

    BETMAMOU, NINA VS BRANDEL MANOR

  • Case No.

    9000635

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2018

App. 4th 790, 818. As plaintiff has a separate negligence cause of action, the fourth cause of action is inappropriate. The court overrules remainder of the demurrer. Defendant shall answer the complaint no later than July 26, 2018.

  • Name

    MARY STRICKLAND VS. NATHANIEL JAMES STOVER

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00505439-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2018

  • Judge

    Vincent O'Neill

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

(Covenant Care, Inc., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 790; Civ. Code, ยง 52.4; Complaint, ยถยถ 89-91.) WCSโ€™ demurrer as to the eighteenth cause of action (violation of Civil Code section 51.9) is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 430.10, subd. (e).) The complaint fails to allege this cause of action with sufficient particularity. (Covenant Care, Inc., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 790; Civ. Code, ยง 51.9; Complaint, ยถยถ 92-95.) WCSโ€™ demurrer as to the nineteenth cause of action (battery) is OVERRULED.

  • Case No.

    CV-2023-1946

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2024

  • County

    Yolo County, CA

APPROVE fees of $1,300 (less $240 already paid) for the conservator, and $790 for conservator's counsel.

  • Name

    IN THE MATTER OF JOAN GOODMAN CLARK

  • Case No.

    56-2008-00329017-PR-CP-VTA

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2010

Notice Of Motion And Motion For An Order Denying Petitioner'S Motion To Vacate Arbitration Award And Confirming Arb Award; Set for hearing on Thursday, October 28, 2010, line 12, RESPONDENT SEIU LOCAL 790-DONISE MANCHESTER'S Motion For An Order Denying Petitioner's Motion To Vacate Arbitration Award And Confirming Arbitration Award. GRANTED. THE PROPOSED ORDER INCLUDING THE REFERENCE TO COSTS IS PROPER.

  • Name

    SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY VS. SEIU LOCAL 790-DONISE MANCHESTER

  • Case No.

    CPF08508438

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2010

Proposed intervener Service Employees International Union ("SEIU"), Local 790 has filed a motion to intervene in the instant writ of mandate action. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Judge Lloyd Connelly in Department 33 for all purposes. While motions to intervene are normally heard by the presiding judge in the Sacramento Superior Court, see Local Rule 2.02(B), when a case is assigned to a single judge for all purposes that judge hears all law and motion matters including motions to intervene.

  • Name

    BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT VS. CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD

  • Case No.

    34-2011-80000820-CU-WM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2011

SUPERIOR COURT (1953) 121 CAL.APP.2D 790. =(302/PJM/ER)

  • Name

    CARMEN CARICCHIO VS. GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY CORPORATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08476119

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2008

Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 786, 790.) This is a very low burden, yet Petitioner has failed to submit any factual evidence at all as to why he wants a separate trial on the issue of dissolution of marital status before trial on all other issues. --------------------------------------------- Tentative Rulings - Main Menu Home

  • Name

    ALFONSO JOSHUA PADILLA VS IRIS BEATRIZ PADILLA

  • Case No.

    BD641579

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2017

Superior Court (2004) 32 Cal.4th 771, 790.) As to the second and third causes of action, plaintiff fails to allege the manner in which his claims are ordinary negligence claims, as opposed to professional negligence claims. The motion to strike is MOOT. Prevailing party to give notice.

  • Name

    HOOVER VS. PHYSICIANS HOSPITAL

  • Case No.

    MCC1701130

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2018

  • Judge

    Raquel A. Marquez

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope