There is an Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) (Ins. Code § 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, “Moradi-Shalal does not bar the claim under the UCL.” (Zhang v. Superior Court (2010) 178 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1085.) “We have made it clear that while a plaintiff may not use the UCL to ‘plead around’ 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.” (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.)

“[T]he UCL, in Business and Professions Code section 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.) “The same is true for fraud.” (Id. citing McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1471.) “No 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.” Id.

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

Statue of Limitations

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

Statute of limitations for claims under Insurance Code section 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.)