{"id":79,"date":"2013-01-09T14:09:48","date_gmt":"2013-01-09T18:09:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/?p=79"},"modified":"2014-09-08T14:43:04","modified_gmt":"2014-09-08T18:43:04","slug":"the-california-supreme-court-will-take-another-look-at-henkel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/2013\/01\/09\/the-california-supreme-court-will-take-another-look-at-henkel\/","title":{"rendered":"The California Supreme Court Will Take Another Look At Henkel"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On December 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted review in <em>Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court<\/em> (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1506, previously commented upon in this <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/2012\/09\/06\/the-california-court-of-appeal-says-nice-try-to-attempt-to-overturn-the-california-supreme-courts-henkel-decision-based-on-an-1872-statute\/\">blog<\/a>. The issue on review, as stated on the Supreme Court\u2019s website, is: \u201cAre the limitations on assignment of third party liability insurance policy benefits recognized in <em>Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident &amp; Indemnity Co.<\/em> (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934 inconsistent with the provisions of Insurance Code section 520?\u201d<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>At issue in <em>Henkel<\/em> was a standard consent-to-assignment clause \u201cAssignment of interest under this policy shall not bind the Company until its consent is endorsed hereon.\u201d (See <em>Henkel, supra,<\/em> 29 Cal.4th at 943.) In <em>Henkel<\/em>, the California Supreme Court held that such clauses are generally valid and enforceable until the time that claims had been \u201creduced to a sum of money due or to become due under the policy.\u201d (<em>Henkel, supra,<\/em> 29 Cal.4th at 944.)<\/p>\n<p>Enacted in 1872, Insurance Code section 520 states that: \u201cAn agreement not to transfer the claim of the insured against the insurer after a loss has happened, is void if made before the loss . . . .\u201d (Ins. Code, \u00a7 520.) The statute was not addressed in Henkel or in any of the briefing in that case. Fluor calls the statute a \u201ccontrolling pronouncement of the law.\u201d On that basis, Fluor argues that <em>Henkel<\/em> was wrongly decided and should be reversed.<\/p>\n<p>The Fourth District didn\u2019t buy the argument when presented in the Court of Appeal. First, it noted that <em>Henkel<\/em> was binding authority on California appellate courts. On review, however, the Supreme Court will take a fresh look at the decision. Second, the Fourth District noted that Insurance Code Section 520 is \u201cone of the more obscure provisions of the California codes. No court has ever relied on it, and it has been cited only once\u2026.The statute is unmentioned in either treatise or commentary.\u201d Finally, the Fourth District pointed out that liability insurance didn\u2019t even exist in 1872 when the statute was written. \u201cWe will not ascribe to the dead hand of the 1872 Legislature controlling power over a medium that had yet to come into being.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court will now settle the dispute. Briefing commences in March 2013.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On December 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted review in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1506, previously commented upon in this blog. The issue on review, as stated on the Supreme Court\u2019s website, is: \u201cAre the limitations on assignment of third party liability insurance policy benefits recognized in Henkel Corp. v. &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/2013\/01\/09\/the-california-supreme-court-will-take-another-look-at-henkel\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;The California Supreme Court Will Take Another Look At Henkel&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":37,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[100,23,131,132,102,33],"ppma_author":[411],"class_list":["post-79","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-assignment","tag-california-supreme-court","tag-fluor","tag-henkel","tag-insurance-code-section-520","tag-paul-killion"],"authors":[{"term_id":411,"user_id":37,"is_guest":0,"slug":"pjkillion","display_name":"Paul J. Killion","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2014\/08\/killionpaul-125x150.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/37"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=79"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/insurancelaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=79"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}