(Certifying Question as to Whether an Insurer May Be Bound by Agent’s Representation of Coverage on Certificate of Insurance)

(Regulations Pertaining to Definitions of Insurance Code Section 790.03’s Terms Valid)

(Notice Prejudice Rule Required Insured To Pay Life Insurance Benefits As It Did Not Sustain Actual Prejudice As A Result Of Late Notice Of A Claim For Benefits)

(Per Person Policy Limit Included Claim for Loss of Consortium)

(Diminution Of Value Of Property Based On Limitation On Permitted Use Constituted Loss Of Use Of Tangible Property Under GL Policy)

(Statutory Immunity Applies to Bar Causes of Action Predicated on Underwritten Title Company Charging for Services for Which No Rate Has Been Filed with the Department of Insurance)

In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc., 5 Cal.5th 216 (2018), the California Supreme Court held, in answering a question certified to it by the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that the employer’s (“Ledesma” or “L&M”) negligent hiring, retention and supervision of an employee (Hecht) who molested a student at a school construction site constitutes an “accident” as that term is used in the definition of “occurrence” in a general liability policy. In so holding, the Supreme Court found that the term “accident” is more comprehensive than the term “negligence” and includes negligence.

In Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indem. Co., 14 Cal.App.5th 1086 (2017), the California Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision that a duty to defend Pulte Home Corporation (“Pulte”) was triggered under three American Safety policies issued to subcontractors which included additional insured endorsements (“AIEs” or “endorsements”) affording coverage to Pulte for liability arising out of the named insured’s work, but only with respect to ongoing operations. Essentially, the Court of Appeal held that the language in the endorsements was ambiguous, such that a defense was owed to Pulte under the American Safety policies, notwithstanding American Safety’s attempt to limit coverage for Pulte to only the time that its named insured was working on a jobsite.