adjustercom.com
adjustercom.net
The Stockwell Firm adjustercom publishes your thoughts and ideas...
Home
News

 Features


Other Claims News
People
Forums
The Comp Examiner Directory
The Liability Adjuster Directory
Service Provider Directory
Post a Job
View Jobs
Resumes
View Resumes
Contact Us

Adjusters Friend

jobs.adjustercom.com

 

Place Your Banner Here With A Click

 

adjustercom.net - FraudFromInsideAndOutsideTheCourtroom

 


Welcome Guest! | Login | Register with adjustercom
 
 
News

News Archive

Email a Friend Email A Friend

More News

April 19, 2024
Workers Compensation Bill 2024: One percent of employee’s salary to contribute to workers’ compensation fund in Kenya.

April 15, 2024
Colorado Worker Shows Head Injury Happened as a Consequence of a Knock on the Head at Work

April 4, 2024
Callfornia Division of Workers' Compensation Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee Meeting Scheduled for April 17, 2024

April 3, 2024
California Division of Workers' Compensation Posts Adjustments to Official Medical Fee Schedule (DMEPOS)



Insurers’ Fault for Northridge Aftershock Claims?
By Robert Warne - March 11, 2003

Video Broadcast
Insurers’ Fault for Northridge Aftershock Claims?
Runtime 2:22

Real Media
56k | Broadband

Windows Media Player
56k | Broadband

Quicktime
56k | Broadband

Carriers with exposure to revived Northridge earthquake claims lost some footing in court March 3 following a federal appeals court decision.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an earlier federal court decision in Campanelli v Allstate Insurance Co. that found Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.9 to be unconstitutional.

The case’s significance is that it was one of the first to test the strength of 340.9, which was enacted in 2000 when the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1899.

The Legislature wanted to give people like the plaintiff’s in the Campanelli case an opportunity to re-file Northridge earthquake related claims if there was any possibility that claimants were a victim of any insurance malfeasance.

There are two provisions that would preclude any actions under 340.9.

One, a claim couldn’t be reopened if it had been litigated to finality in any court of competent jurisdiction and had received a final judgment prior to Jan. 1, 2001. And two, any written compromised settlement agreement which had been made between an insurer and its insured where the insured was represented by counsel admitted to the practice of law in California at the time of the settlement, and who signed the agreement.

Allstate used these arguments and threw in a couple of federal and state constitution contractual and due process violation claims. But to no avail, the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

The California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have so far refused to take up the issue of 340.9’s constitutionality.

So for now, with tensions strung high and the fault line widening, the thousands of claims filed between 2000 and 2001 will start to rock the Los Angeles County Superior Court and shake carriers’ books regardless if they committed any malfeasance or not.

 
 

 Hot Jobs


Adjuster / Examiner
Claims Examiner
Santa Ana Unified School District
Santa Ana, CA
View All Jobs

The J Morey Company

Build Your Brand

jobs.adjustercom.com

The J Morey Company


    Copyright 2024 | Privacy Policy | Feedback |  

Web site engine's code is Copyright © 2003 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.