CALL NOW TO SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY 1-844-HAFFNER
213-514-5681

Experienced. Reliable. Capable. We Look Out for You.

  • No Hidden Fees Involved
  • No Obligation to Continue Beyond the Case Review
  • Get All Your Legal Questions Answered
click here for a free consultation

Notable Case Results

  • $ $97,284,817

    Class Action
    Mortgage Broker Rest Break
  • $ 8,820,000

    Brain Injury
    Settlement
  • $ 8,250,000

    Wrongful Death/Personal Injury
  • $ 23,500,000

    Bank of America
    Mortgage Broker Wage Class Action

Associations

Results

$ 8,820,000

Brain Injury Settlement

$ 8,250,000

Wrongful Death/Personal Injury

$ 23,500,000

Bank of America Mortgage Broker Wage Class Action

Touch below for a free injury consultation.

click here for a

free consultation

no fees until you get paid

“Skinnying” Down Or Reducing Insurance Coverage When A Policy Is Renewed – Notice Requirements Under California Law

When insurance policies are renewed, insurers sometimes change the coverage provided, often including new exclusions or limitations.  When insurance policy coverage or benefits are reduced upon renewal, it is sometimes referred to as “skinnying” down the policy.  An example of reductions in coverage include policy changes to limit benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder or wildfire smoke damage.

Under California law, to the extent coverage is reduced when the policy is renewed, the insurer must provide adequate notice of the new exclusion, limitation, or reduction.  Thus, the California Supreme Court has held that “no change may be made in the terms of the renewal policy without notice to the insured.”  (Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission of California(1949) 34 Cal.2d 500, 506.)  For property insurance, the California Insurance Code explicitly provides that an insurance company must, “at least 45 days prior to policy expiration,” provide notice in a renewal offer of “any reduction of limits or elimination of coverage.” (California Insurance Code §678(a).)

Further, California law requires that when an insurance  company changes, reduces, or limits the coverage or benefits of a policy upon renewal, the notice of such change must “be provided in a ‘plain, clear and conspicuous writing.’” (Everett v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 649, 663.)  To be conspicuous, the notice must be “displayed or presented” in a way that it would be “noticed” by a reasonable person.  (Broberg v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.(2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 912, 922-23.)  Examples of conspicuous notice “includes . . . a heading in capitals . . . larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size . . .”  (Id. at 923.)

Moreover, the notice of reduction in coverage must be “specific.”  (Davis v. United Services Auto Ass’n (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1322, 1332.)  Thus, “a general admonition to read the policy for changes is insufficient.”  (Id.)  The failure to provide “adequate notice” renders the attempted reduction or limitation in coverage “ineffective.”  (Id. at 1333.)

Insureds should review insurance policy renewal notices closely to determine whether there is any new exclusions, limitations, or reductions in the coverage being provided.  In practice, policyholders often only become aware of a reduction in coverage when they suffer a loss, make a claim believing they have coverage, and then learn that coverage they expected has been excluded or reduced.  If the policy included the coverage when it incepted, then there must be an adequate notice of the reduction of coverage during subsequent renewals in order for the reduction or limitation to be enforceable.

Insureds faced with a situation where there coverage has been reduced, resulting in a denial or limitation of payment of benefits for a claim, should ask his or her insurer for the notice they provided of the reduction in coverage.  If the insurer cannot provide the notice, or it appears that the notice is inadequate, there may be an avenue to challenge the coverage reduction.  Policyholders faced with such a situation may want to seek legal counsel to determine if there is a way to prevent the new exclusion, limitation, or reduction in policy coverage from impacting their claim.

Click below to share this article:

RESULTS

$15,000,000

PROPERTY DAMAGE / BAD FAITH

$ 97,284,817

Class Action / Rest Break

$10,000,000

Bad Faith

$ 8,820,000

Brain Injury

$7,500,000

Medical Malpractice

$8,250,000

Wrongful Death / Accident

$1,000,000

Construction Defect
view all

INJURED ? CALL 213-514-5681

or

FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW FOR AFREE CASE REVIEW

  • NO PRESSURE
  • SPEAK WITH AN ATTORNEY
  • NO HIDDEN FEES
  • The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Sending time sensitive material to the firm via this message, will not be the responsibility of the firm. Proceed if you've read this disclaimer.
[]
1 Step 1
Type your name here & click nextyour full name
Phoneyour full name
Commentsmore details
0 /
Some Title
Nameyour full name
Some Title
Commentsmore details
0 /
Some Title
Previous
Next
powered by FormCraft
All Fields Required