Schimmel

Schimmel v. Norcal Mutual Insurance

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1075·39 Cal. App. 4th 1282·46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 401·95 Daily Journal DAR 14665·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8514
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 1, 1995C019541California1,093 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nicholson, J.

There is currently no tort liability in California for refusal to renew a professional liability insurance policy for reasons in violation of public policy. Whether such liability should be imposed is a matter for the people of California to decide, either by initiative or through the Legislature. We may not legislate on the subject in their stead.

Procedure

NORCAL Mutual Insurance Company insured Drs. Leon Schimmel and Charles Stice and their professional corporation (collectively, Schimmel) in their practice of medicine. Concluding the practice presented unacceptable risks, however, NORCAL terminated Schimmel’s insurance at the end of a policy term. Schimmel sued NORCAL and Northern California Physician’s Council (NORCAP), a physician’s group that provided reviews concerning insurance for NORCAL, for “bad faith and unfair dealing.” The parties appeared for trial. However, following an extended offer of proof by Schimmel at trial, the trial court ruled Schimmel had no cause of action and entered judgment in favor of NORCAL and NORCAP because the termination of insurance was a nonrenewal at the end of a policy term.

Schimmel appeals. Since Schimmel’s case against…

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.