Fairbanks

Fairbanks v. Superior Court

Good Law
154 Cal. App. 4th 435·64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 2007B198538California4,176 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fulbright & Jaworski, Richard R. Mainland, Peter H. Mason, Joshua D. Lichtman and Eric A. Herzog, Los Angeles, for Real Parties in Interest.

The Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ.Code, §§ 1750 et seq. ["CLRA"]), enacted in 1970, is a pro-consumer statute intended to protect low-income consumers from deceptive or unfair business practices. It prohibits specific deceptive or unfair acts in the sale or lease of goods and services. In these proceedings, we consider whether insurance is a "good" or "service" within the meaning of the CLRA. This case presents a difficult issue of first impression; plausible arguments can be made on both sides of the issue. We ultimately conclude, however, that the more persuasive and better reasoned argument requires that we hold that insurance is neither a "good" nor "service" within the meaning of the CLRA.

Farmers New World Life Insurance Company ("Farmers") is a provider of interest-sensitive universal life insurance policies. [2] Pauline Fairbanks purchased a Farmers Flexible Premium Universal Life policy. The Flexible Premium Universal Life policies sold by Farmers were represented to be permanent insurance. When she was sold such a…

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.