Davis

Davis v. Continental Insurance

Good Law
178 Cal. App. 3d 836·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2704·224 Cal. Rptr. 66
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 13, 1986A027880California1,776 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haning, J.

We are called upon to determine whether the prohibitions of Insurance Code section 790.03, subdivision (h), apply to independent insurance adjusters retained by insurance companies to investigate and resolve claims.

I

Underwriters Adjusting Company, an independent insurance adjuster, was retained by Continental Insurance Company to investigate and adjust a claim with respondents Ronald and Michele Davis. Settlement negotiations failed, Continental denied the claim, and respondents sued Continental and Underwriters for, inter alia, violation of section 790.03, subdivisions (h)(1) through (5), and recovered general and punitive damages against each. Continental does not contest its liability for general damages nor the amount thereof, but appeals only on the ground that the punitive damages are inappropriate and excessive. Underwriters contends it is not subject to section 790.03, and has no liability thereunder.

We emphasize that we are confronted with a finding of liability based only on a violation of a statutory duty. Therefore, it is unnecessary to discuss Underwriters’ theories which exonerate it due to the lack of a contractual relationship with respondents.…

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.