Association of California Insurance Companies v. Jones
California Supreme Court
2 Cal. 5th 376 (2017)
- Written by Nicole Gray , JD
Facts
In 1959, the California legislature enacted the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, which authorized the commissioner of insurance, Dave Jones (defendant), to promulgate regulations from time to time as warranted, after notice and opportunity for public comment had been given, to regulate unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance. In accordance with his authority and with proper notice, the commissioner proposed a regulation standardizing the calculation of replacement-cost estimates for homeowners’ insurance. The regulation came after several California wildfires revealed that many residents were underinsured, expecting that their insurance would cover the costs of rebuilding their homes when some coverage fell hundreds of thousands of dollars short. Following an investigation, the commissioner found that the problem stemmed from inconsistent and noncomprehensive replacement-cost calculations. As a result, the commissioner promulgated the proposed regulation standardizing components of replacement-cost estimates and categorizing estimates that did not comport with the regulation as misleading. The regulation did not require insurers to estimate replacement costs; however, when insurers did so, the regulation required that they specify how the estimate was calculated and communicated, and the estimate had to include costs of labor, building materials, and supplies and had to account for geographical location. A few weeks before the regulation was to become effective, the Association of California Insurance Companies and the Personal Insurance Federation of California (plaintiffs) filed suit in a state trial court challenging the validity of the regulation. The trial court invalidated the regulation after finding that it exceeded the commissioner’s authority by defining acts as misleading that were not expressly defined by the state’s legislature. A court of appeals affirmed. The commissioner appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cuéllar, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.