Fairbanks

Fairbanks v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

Caution
2009 Cal. LEXIS 3687·46 Cal. 4th 56·92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 279·205 P.3d 201
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 20, 2009S157001California2,994 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kennard, J.

Enacted in 1970, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) prohibits specified unfair and deceptive acts and practices in a “transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer” (id., § 1770, subd. (a)). The question we decide here is whether life insurance is a “service” subject to the act’s remedial provisions. We conclude that it is not. As this is consistent with the Court of Appeal’s decision, we affirm its judgment.

I

In November 2003, plaintiff Pauline Fairbanks filed a complaint in superior court, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, naming as defendants both Farmers Group, Inc., and Farmers New World Life Insurance Company (collectively, Fanners). Michael Cobb was named as an additional plaintiff in the third amended complaint, which is the pleading at issue here.

Plaintiffs Fairbanks and Cobb have alleged that they are California residents who have purchased Fanners’s policies of universal fife insurance and flexible premium universal life insurance. Fairbanks is a Farmers agent; Cobb, apparently, is not. Plaintiffs sought to bring this action as a class action on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.