Legal Solutions  Blog

This post explores whether CACI No. 2334’s requirement of a formal settlement demand should be abandoned.

This post examines whether making unreasonable insurer conduct an element of a bad faith failure to settle claim affects the ability of insurers to dispose of such claims on summary judgment before trial.

This post argues that focusing exclusively on the reasonableness of the claimant’s settlement demand effectively makes bad faith failure to settle a strict liability tort in violation of California law.

Today’s post discusses the second, and more controversial, revision to the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions on insurance bad faith: Proposed changes to CACI No. 2334 on a liability insurer’s bad faith failure to settle.

My last post discussed briefly two significant revisions to the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) on insurance bad faith.

California’s Civil Jury Instructions Advisory Committee’s recent proposals to amend the CACI instructions on insurance bad faith proved contentious.

The Eighth Circuit’s recent State Bank of Bellingham v. BankInsure, Inc., decision is likely to be studied closely by lawyers litigating coverage for cyber attacks under Financial Institution Bonds.

A recent California Supreme Court decision has substantially limited the reach of the Elder Abuse Act.

California Supreme Court adds clarity to U.S. Supreme Court’s guideposts for evaluating constitutionally of punitive damages awards in insurance bad faith cases.

In a victory for insureds and personal injury claimants, the Supreme Court recently created a exception to the general rule in favor of enforceability of reimbursement rights against a plaintiff’s general assets.