Schwartz

Schwartz v. Poizner

Good Law
113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 610·187 Cal. App. 4th 592·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1406
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 28, 2010No. A126217California2,543 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Pollak, J.

In October 2005, following an extensive investigation, the Commissioner of California’s Department of Insurance (the Commissioner) entered into a settlement agreement with a number of related insurance companies (the insurers) resolving allegations that the insurers’ claims-handling procedures violated the Insurance Code. 1 In the present action, *595 plaintiff Rick L. Schwartz alleges numerous causes of action against the insurers who are parties to the settlement agreement, and also petitions for a writ of mandate directed at the Commissioner. Plaintiff purports to represent classes of California residents holding disability income policies issued by the insurers who, like him, submitted no claims under their policies but allegedly were overcharged for their policies in view of the insurers’ unlawfully restrictive claims procedures and who received no benefit under the terms of the settlement agreement. Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing the petition for a writ of mandate, which sought to compel the Commissioner to pursue additional remedies against the insurers that will inure to the benefit of class members. 2 He contends the trial court erred in concluding…

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.