(Once SIRs were exhausted in connection with claims covered by underlying umbrella policies, insured was not obligated to pay additional SIRs for new claims triggered under excess policies)

(Government Code Section 825.4 Does Not Contain a Blanket Ban on a Public Entity Employee’s Insurer Contributing to the Employee’s Defense and Settlement Costs as a Co-Defendant in a Lawsuit Against the Public Entity)

(Insurer Did Not Commit Bad Faith in Requesting a Determination of the Eligibility of Payment of Medical Expenses through Workers’ Compensation System Prior to Paying Uninsured Motorist Benefits)

(Colorado Supreme Court Limits Availability of Independent Medical Examination in UM/UIM Bad Faith Litigation)

(Trend in Arizona Bad Faith Litigation of Plaintiffs Suing Insurance Company and Third Party Administrators)

(“Good Faith” Breach of Duty to Defend May Leave Insurer Liable for Excess Judgment)

(Any Potential for Coverage Triggers Insurer’s Duty to Defend Until the Parties’ Rights and Responsibilities are Judicially Determined)

On March 28, 2019, Division Five of the First Appellate District Court of Appeal published its opinion in Connelly v. Bornstein (Mar. 28, 2019, No. A152375 ___ Cal.App.5th ___, clarifying that the one-year statute of limitations applies to malicious prosecution actions brought against attorneys.