Life, Health and Disability Insurance Law Blog : Life, Health and Disability Insurance Law Blog : California Disability Lawyer & Attorney : Barger & Wolen Law Firm : CA Life Insurance & ERISA Law, Life Health Disability

In a decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the United States Supreme Court has declared that an ERISA claimant need not be a “prevailing party” to be eligible for an attorneys’ fees award. In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., __ U.S.__ (2010), the Court ruled that under 29 U.S.C. §1132(g)(1), a party may be awarded attorneys’ fees if “some degree of success on the merits” is achieved, as opposed to the more stringent requirement imposed by some circuit courts that they be a “prevailing party.”

Bridget Hardt initiated the litigation seeking long-term disability benefits under an ERISA plan. Faced with cross motions for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Reliance’s motion finding that “Reliance’s decision to deny benefits was based on incomplete information.” The District Court also denied Hardt’s motion for summary judgment, but in doing so, found “compelling evidence” that Hardt was totally disabled. The District Court accordingly remanded the claim to Reliance with instructions that all of the evidence in the file be adequately considered within 30 days, otherwise “judgment will be issued in favor of Ms. Hardt.” 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Few firms can claim that they’ve written the book of law on a specific legal topic, such as California insurance law. Barger & Wolen, however, is proud to announce that we are in the process of updating, revising, and writing new chapters for the Matthew Bender California Insurance Law & Practice book published by LexisNexis.

Recently released revisions of California Insurance Law & Practice include:

Chapter 1: Overview of California Insurance Law, revised by Steven H. Weinstein and Marina M. Karvelas. Discusses the nature of insurance, including the elements of the insurance contract, the “Assumption of Risk of Loss” and the “Principal Object and Purpose” tests and examples of what qualified and doesn’t qualify as insurance, including the current issue of whether credit default swaps qualify as insurance.

Chapter 6A: Property-Casualty Insurance Ratemaking and Rate Regulation, revised by Steven H. Weinstein and Richard G. De La Mora. Addresses the basic actuarial concepts underlying the property-casualty insurance rate making process.

Chapter 42: Workers’ Compensation Insurance, revised by Steven H. Weinstein, James C. Castle and Peter Sindhuphak. Provides an overview of the governing law of workers’ compensation insurance in California.

Chapter 60: Licensing of Agents and Brokers, revised by Christophe H. Burusco and Dennis C. Quinn. Discusses numerous types of agents and brokers, license applications, license examinations, certificates of convenience, license issuance, procedural rules applicable to licenses, application fees, and the termination of licenses.

Upcoming chapters for 2010 include a new submission on Subrogation, along with revisions and updates on The California Insurance Holding Company Act, Reinsurance, Claims Processing and Investigation and Marine Insurance.

Future updates (through 2011) will include:

• The Regulation of Insurer Investments
• The Insurance Contract
• Issuance of Insurance policies
• Nature and Types of Life Insurance
• The Life Insurance Contract
• Nature and Types of Disability Insurance
• Group Life and Disability Insurance
• Operating Requirements of Agents and Brokers
• Surplus Line Brokers
• Disciplinary Actions Against Agents and Brokers
• Insurance Considerations in Business Planning

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

by James C. Castle

Efforts in Sacramento to put a cap on the recovery of punitive damages were stomped out on May 4, 2010, as a party-line vote killed pending tort reform legislation in the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee.

As reported previously, Assembly Bill 2740, authored by Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) sought to limit punitive damages to three times the amount of compensatory damages. Because plaintiff’s attorneys routinely work on a contingency basis, this legislation was strongly opposed by plaintiff’s attorneys – arguing it was unnecessary. The bill would have also capped “pain and suffering” awards to $250,000.

Kim Stone, Vice President of the Civil Justice Association of California, testified that these “common-sense reforms would go a really long way towards making California more friendly to business while at the same time protecting the truly injured to make sure they receive their just compensation.”

Niello, a strong-backer of business interests in California, argued that tort reform is necessary to reinvigorate the state as a place for businesses to make their home.

“It's been stated by (the trial lawyers) that there’s no need, there isn’t a problem. There is a need, there is a problem. The problem is the reputation of California as a place to do business in is in the tank, and part of the reason for that is our civil justice system,” Niello told the committee.

Unfortunately, these justifications were not persuasive – or perhaps more pessimistically, not considered – as the bill was defeated on a party-line vote. Democrats unanimously voted against the reform, Republicans unanimously voted for reform. Given the toxicity and divisiveness of California state politics, perhaps little less should have been expected.

Originally posted at Barger & Wolen's Insurance Litigation & Regulatory Law blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks