Date: May 25th, 2023 7:30 PM Author: insane garrison
Client demanded UM arb. After written discovery and client depo, UM insurance co denied coverage and demanded appointment of arbitrator (instead of settling).
An arbitrator was appointed. After we had a date certain, the UM insurance counsel just demanded that the arb be canceled because they are denying coverage. Odd case.
Wwyd
Seems like the CR filing a UCL/bad faith/breach of contract suit in our Illustrious Superior Court instead of keeping arb on
Date: May 26th, 2023 9:36 AM Author: insane garrison
Client hit a trashcan that was left in the middle of the 101 by an unknown vehicle/trick. Insurance co is citing case law saying if you hit and dinette set without seeing where it came from, then there is no coverage.
I found case law where a rock bounces off a car and hits the vehicle, then there is coverage (either under UM statute or policy). They then canceled arb bc no coverage. Odd case.
Date: May 26th, 2023 12:13 PM Author: insane garrison
Yeah, that's my feeling--although, the policy itself can provide more coverage than the UM Statute itself. Apart from that, it is a battle between Barnes v. Nationwide Insurance Company 186 Cal.App.3d 541 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) and Pham v. Allstate Ins. Co. 206 Cal.App.3d 1193 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
Showdown of the Scholars with Infinity's in-house counsel