California Casualty Indemnity [PATCHED]

The conclusion that California law is applicable to the insurance policies involved here comports with the general rule in such matters. The Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws section 193 states: "The validity of a contract of fire, surety or casualty insurance and the rights created thereby are determined by the local law of the state which the parties understood was to be the principal location of the insured risk during the term of the policy, unless with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship ..." As the court explained in Cunninghame v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. (2d Cir. 1981) 652 F.2d 306: [7] "In contracts of casualty insurance, ... the principal location of the insured risk is given particular emphasis in determining the choice of the applicable law. [Citation.] This is so because location has an intimate bearing upon the nature of the risk and the parties would naturally expect the local law of the state where the risk is to be principally located to apply. [Citations.] Moreover, the state where the insured risk will be principally located during the term of the policy has an interest in the determination of issues arising under the insurance contract." (Id., at p. 308, fn. 1.)

california casualty indemnity

A few examples of the application of the rule should suffice. In Blue Bird Body Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental (5th Cir. 1978) 583 F.2d 717, the plaintiff rented a vehicle from the defendant. The parties were Georgia residents who were insured by Georgia insurers. The vehicle was expected to be used only in Georgia but for unknown reasons the driver of the vehicle drove into Mississippi where he was involved in a collision. The Georgia insurers settled with the Mississippi residents who were injured and then brought an indemnity action to determine which insurer would bear primary responsibility. Under Mississippi law one of the insurers could be held primarily responsible, while under Georgia law they would be required to prorate the loss. The court noted that since the Mississippi residents had been paid for their losses Mississippi had no real concern in the indemnity action. Since [193 Cal. App. 3d 1608] the contracts were executed in Georgia by Georgia residents that state had the most significant interest in the action and its law was applied. (583 F.2d at p. 723.) In Tholen v. Carney (5th Cir. 1977) 555 F.2d 479, at page 481, footnote 5, California residents sought to stack their uninsured motorist coverage under Alabama law because the accident occurred there. The court applied California's nonstacking rule because "[t]he plaintiffs are residents of California and the contract of insurance was made in California, with uninsured motorist coverage being afforded to comport with section 11580.2 of California's Insurance Code." In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Crockett (1980) 103 Cal. App. 3d 652, at page 655 [163 Cal. Rptr. 206], the court resolved the parties' choice of law dispute by saying: "Appellants' contract with State Farm was executed in California by California residents, and must be interpreted in accordance with the law of this state, ..." fn. 7

Padovese has 40 years of experience in the property and casualty insurance industry. At GeoVera, she had direct responsibility for the underwriting operations, marketing and human resources functions, with shared responsibility for the information technology and compliance functions. During her career at Fireman's Fund, USF&G and GeoVera, Padovese held executive positions ranging from vice president to division president, and she has board of directors experience with multiple property and casualty insurers.

The National Council on Compensation Insurance Inc. (NCCI) reports that medical services now represent 60 percent of Workers Comp claim costs. In the past, indemnity costs made up the biggest part of the Workers Comp claim.

WCAB Jurisdiction-Five-Year Statute of Limitations-New and Further Temporary Disability-WCAB rescinded WCJ's finding that applicant/custodian with 9/13/96 injury to his right knee and 5/7/97 injuries to his low back, right shoulder, right knee, cervical spine, head, and urological system was entitled to temporary disability indemnity for period of temporary disability from 7/16/2006 to present, and held that WCJ lacked jurisdiction to award temporary disability indemnity for this period because... 041b061a72