From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Assn. v. Associated Internat. Ins. Co.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Jul 30, 2001
No. B137320 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2001)

Opinion


Page 1413e

90 Cal.App.4th 1413e CHATEAU CHAMBERAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. B137320. California Court of Appeal, Second District, Third Division July 30, 2001

[Modification of opinion (90 Cal.App.4th 335; 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 776) on denial of petition for rehearing.]

This modification requires an editorial change in headnote (5), page 338 of the advance report. In headnote (5) of the bound volume report, a new fourth sentence will be added to read as follows: "An expert's testimony will not automatically insulate an insurer from a bad faith claim based on a biased investigation." Movement of text will be made affecting pages 349-351 of the bound volume.

THE COURT.

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 29, 2001, be modified in the following particulars:

1. Page 16, line 12, after the word “insurer” insert “, for example,” and on line 13 [90 Cal.App.4th 348, advance report, 2d par., lines 1-2], italicize the word “may” so that lines 12 and 13 read as follows:

As the Fraley court emphasized, where an insurer, for example, is relying on the advice and opinions of independent experts, then a basis may exist for invoking the doctrine and cautioned that an expert’s testimony will not automatically insulate an insurer from a bad investigation. (Guebara v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 237 F.3d at p. 996) As we now correct. It is only necessary for us to determine that, in light of the record as a whole, its

This list is certainly not intended to be exhaustive of the circumstances that may justify submission to a jury of an insurer’s “genuine dispute” defense to a claim of bad faith. Nor, we must also add, may an insurer insulate itself from liability for bad faith conduct by the simple expedient of hiring an expert for the purpose of manufacturing a “genuine dispute.”

2. Page 17, line 4 [90 Cal.App.4th 348, advance report, 2d par., line 7], italicize the word “automatically” so that line 4 reads as follows:

Also on page 17, line 14 [90 Cal.App.4th 349, advance report, line 2], at the end of the parenthetical phrase “(Guebara v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 237 F.3d at p. 996.)” add a new footnote designator and renumber subsequent footnotes accordingly. Line 14 and the new footnote text will read as follows:

Page 1413f

3. Page 19, line 17 [90 Cal.App.4th 350, advance report, 1st par., line 13], italicize the words “in light of the record as a whole,” so that line 17 reads as follows:

Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

There is no change in the judgment.


Summaries of

Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Assn. v. Associated Internat. Ins. Co.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division
Jul 30, 2001
No. B137320 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2001)
Case details for

Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Assn. v. Associated Internat. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:CHATEAU CHAMBERAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

Date published: Jul 30, 2001

Citations

No. B137320 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2001)