In Dameron Hospital Association v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 111 Cal. App. 5th 530 (2025), the California Third District Court of Appeal held that a hospital cannot bypass Medi-Cal reimbursement procedures by seeking full payment directly from a patient’s uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”) insurance benefits based on an assignment of benefits (“AOB”) clause in its Conditions of Admission (“COA”). 

In Siino v. Foresters Life Insurance and Annuity Co., 133 F.4th 936 (9th Cir. 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether an insurer’s failure to comply with California’s statutory notice requirements invalidated its termination of a life insurance policy for nonpayment of premiums. In this case, Pamela Siino had purchased a life insurance policy from Foresters Life Insurance and Annuity Company (“FLIAC”) in 2010. After moving in 2014 and failing to successfully update her address, Siino did not receive notices about her premium due in January 2018 and as a result, failed to pay it by the deadline. FLIAC sent a lapse notice in February 2018, notifying Siino that her policy had lapsed, but also advising she had the opportunity to reinstate it by paying the premium.  However, Siino again did not receive the notice and failed to submit her overdue premium to reinstate the policy. In 2020, Siino purchased a new policy from another insurer and later filed a lawsuit against FLIAC, alleging violations of California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 (collectively, the “Statutes”), which require insurers to provide pretermination and designee notices before terminating a policy.

In Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 111 Cal. App. 5th 568 (May 7, 2025), the California Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed whether a dispute over insurance coverage in a workers’ compensation case should be subject to mandatory arbitration under California Labor Code section 5275(a)(1). This case arose from a claim filed by George Zeber, a former professional baseball player, who alleged cumulative injuries sustained during his employment with the New York Yankees from 1968 to 1978. Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”) disputed whether the New York Yankees had workers’ compensation coverage during that time. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (“WCAB”) found that Zeber had sustained a compensable injury, but deferred any award pending mandatory arbitration of the insurance coverage dispute. Travelers challenged this decision, arguing that the WCAB lacked authority to compel arbitration because the injury occurred before the statutory threshold date for mandatory arbitration.

In a long running dispute involving repeated tenders of defense of actions to quiet title for an easement running across Chicago Title Insurance Company’s (“Chicago”) insured, Richard Bartel’s (“Bartel”) property, the Court of Appeal in Bartel v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 111 Cal.App.5th 655 (May 30, 2025) affirmed the trial court’s holding that Chicago had acted in bad faith in refusing to defend Bartel against such actions. However, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision that Chicago’s conduct did not support an award of punitive damages.

In the appeal of the last of three separate lawsuits related to contribution for defense costs and indemnity costs, in Truck Ins. Exch. v. Federal Ins. Co., 111 Cal. App. 5th 62 (May 12, 2025) depublished, 2025 Cal. LEXIS 4735 (July 23, 2025), the California Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision finding that Truck Insurance Exchange (“Truck”) was not entitled to reimbursement from Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”) in connection with the defense of 30,000 underlying lawsuits against Moldex-Metric, Inc (“Moldex”) related to the manufacture of defective air respirators and masks that failed to protect plaintiffs from inhaling silica, asbestos, and mixed dust leading to bodily injury (the “lawsuits”) based on the argument that Federal had concealed it decision to voluntarily pay defense costs in connection with the lawsuits

In 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners Association (HOA) v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 110 Cal.App.5th 211 (March 28, 2025) rev. granted by California Supreme Court, 2025 Cal LEXIS 4791 (Cal. July 30, 2025), the California Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Farmers”) with respect to a breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit filed by the HOA for property loss sustained by a condominium complex.  The parties’ dispute arose out of damage sustained by the complex due to two rain events while the roof on the complex  was being replaced.  

In Farmers Direct Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Montez, et al. 130 F.4th 748 (9th Cir. March 6, 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s dismissal of Farmers Direct Property and Casualty Company’s (“Farmers”) declaratory relief action based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court agreed with intervening parties, Victor Montez and Lisa Montez (“Montezes”), because Farmers requested a declaration which did not satisfy the jurisdictional limit of $75,000 required in diversity actions filed in federal court. As such, the District Court vacated its order holding that Farmers had no duty to defend and indemnify its insured, Dennis Perez, based on his failure to cooperate, and dismissed the Farmers action.

On July 30, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order suspending an exemption on tariffs for certain low-value imported goods, commonly referred to as the “de minimis exemption.” The order will take effect for goods entering the United States on or after August 29, 2025. This Client Alert examines the de minimis exemption and what its suspension may mean for U.S. businesses.