Insurance
Sep. 14, 2013
The continuing relevance of 'conditions'
For a while few decisions addressed "conditions"; insurer success changed that dynamic.
Rex Heeseman
JAMS
555 W 5th St Fl 32
Los Angeles , CA 90013-1055
Phone: (213) 253-9772
Fax: (213) 620-0100
Email: rheeseman@jamsdar.com
Stanford Univ Law School
Rex Heeseman retired from the Los Angeles Count Superior Court bench in 2014. He is at JAMS, Los Angeles. Besides speaking at various MCLE programs, he co-authors The Rutter Group's practice guide on "Insurance Litigation." From 2002 to 2015, he was an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School.
With respect to some insurance claims, a "condition" imposes upon the insured a duty to do (or not do) something in order to pursue coverage. North American Capacity Ins. Co. v. Claremont Liab. Ins. Co., 177 Cal. App. 4th 272 (2009). A similar such duty is a "warranty," also in the nature of a condition precedent. Trishan Air, Inc. v. Federal Ins., Co., 635 F3d 422 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying California law).
With the exception of the notice clause, for a while few dec...For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In