Ellena

Ellena v. Department of Insurance

Bad Law
178 Cal. Rptr. 3d 435·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 883·230 Cal. App. 4th 198
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 1, 2014A137268California7,927 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

Cassaundra Ellena appeals from a judgment of dismissal of her mandamus claim against the Department of Insurance and the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance (the commissioner; collectively, the DOI). Ellena contends, among other things, that the trial court erred when it found that she did not sufficiently allege in her pleading that the DOI violated a specific mandatory duty. We conclude that Ellena stated a viable mandamus claim because, as alleged, the commissioner violated the mandatory duty under Insurance Code sections 12921.5, 12926, and 10291.5, subdivision (b), to review a new group disability insurance policy form for compliance with the law prior to approving the policy for distribution in the state. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment dismissing the DOI.

BACKGROUND

On November 18, 2011, Ellena filed a complaint against Standard Insurance Company (Standard), Stancorp Financial Group (Stancorp), and the DOI. She alleged that Standard is a wholly owned subsidiary of Stancorp, and that Standard failed to provide disability benefits to her under a group disability policy issued to her employer, the County of Sonoma (the policy), after she stopped working…

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.