Does the Insurance Code Apply to a Contract which Contains Some Risk Distribution Terms? After the Court of Appeal affirmed judgment for the defendant, the Supreme Court granted review on the following issue: Was a self-storage facility’s storage rental agreement, which included provisions arguably meeting the definition of “insurance” (see Ins. Code, §§ 22, 1758.75), subject to regulation under the Insurance Code when the principal purpose of the agreement between the parties was the rental of storage space rather than the shifting and distribution of risk? Heckart v. A-1 Self Storage, Inc., S232322 (opinion below D066831, formerly 243 Cal.App.4th 525). Petition granted on 3/16/16.

Can the Insurance Commissioner Set Requirements For Replacement Value and Declare Non-Compliance as an Unfair Trade Practice? After the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal affirmed judgment against the Commissioner, the Supreme Court granted review of the following issues: (1) Does the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Ins. Code, § 790, et seq.) give the Insurance Commissioner authority to promulgate a regulation that sets forth requirements for communicating replacement value and states that noncompliance with the regulation constitutes a misleading statement, and therefore an unfair trade practice, for purposes of the act? (2) Does the Insurance Commissioner have the statutory authority to promulgate a regulation specifying that the communication of a replacement cost estimate that omits one or more of the components in subdivisions (a)-(e) of section 2695.183 of title 10 of the California Code of Regulations is a “misleading” statement with respect to the business of insurance? (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 10, § 2695.183(j).) Association of California Ins. Companies v. Jones, S226529 (opinion below B248622, formerly at 235 Cal.App.4th 1009). Review was granted 7/13/15.  Update 9/8/16: Oral argument scheduled for 10/5/16. Update 9/14/16: Case is to be called and continued to November 2016 calendar.