PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Automobile / New California Time-Limited Demand Statute for Insurance Claims Effective Now

New California Time-Limited Demand Statute for Insurance Claims Effective Now

February 10, 2023 by Chad W. Dunham

In an effort to promote early resolution of claims and remove ambiguity in bad faith litigation, the California legislature recently passed Senate Bill 1155. Effective January 1, 2023, the bill creates California Code of Civil Procedure Section 999 et seq., a set of rules detailing form requirements for time-limited demands, demand delivery procedures, and steps needed to accept or deny the demand. The scope of Section 999 is limited to demands brought prior to any suit or arbitration involving property damage, personal or bodily injury, or wrongful death causes of action. Additionally, Section 999 only applies to claims covered under motor vehicle, homeowner, or commercial premises liability insurance policies where the claimant is represented by counsel.

Background

Under California case law, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in insurance policies obligates insurers to make reasonable efforts to settle a third-party’s lawsuit against the insured, and opens the possibility for the insured to sue the insurer to recover damages caused by the insurer’s failure to reasonably settle a lawsuit (typically damages in excess of the insurance policy limits). In the context of time-limited demands, pre-Section 999 courts assessed, on a case-by-case basis, the length of time an insurance company is given to act on a pre-litigation demand as a key factor in whether the demand was in fact a reasonable offer to settle the claim, i.e. one that can give rise to bad faith litigation should the insurance company not accept.

Key Provisions

Section 999 supplants that existing case law and provides a framework for whether a time-limited demand can be considered a reasonable offer to settle. To that end, the statute contains several requirements, starting with the form of the demand. Specifically, Section 999.1 requires that the demand:

  • Be written and labeled as a time-limited demand, or reference Section 999;
  • Provides at least 30 days for acceptance if sent by email, fax, or certified mail, and at least 33 days if by regular mail;
  • Contain a clear and unequivocal offer to settle all claims within policy limits, including the satisfaction of all liens;
  • Provide for a complete release from the claimant for the insured;
  • Specify the date and location of the loss, the claim number (if known), and provide a description of all known injuries sustained by the claimant; and
  • Provide reasonable proof sufficient to support the claim, which may include medical records or bills.

The demand must be sent either to the insurance representative assigned to handle the claim or to the email or physical address designated by the insurer for receipt of time-limited demands.  To facilitate the latter, the statute requires the Department of Insurance to post on its website the email or physical address.

As for steps the insurer must take upon receipt of a time-limited demand, Section 999.3 contains several options:

  • The insurer may accept the demand by providing written acceptance of the material terms outlined in Section 999.1 in their entirety;
  • The insured may attempt to seek clarification or request additional time to investigate the claims in the demand. Such attempts are not to be construed as a counteroffer or a rejection of the demand.
  • The insured may not accept the demand. If it does so, it must notify the claimant in writing prior to the expiration of the demand of its decision and the basis for its decision. The statute states that the notification “shall be relevant in any lawsuit alleging extra contractual damages against the tortfeasor’s liability insurer.”

Potential Issues

While the new rule offers some clear guidelines for claimants and insurers, it also raises potential areas of uncertainty. For example, Section 999.4 requires “substantial compliance” in order for a demand to be considered a reasonable offer to settle the claim, which implies that complete compliance is not required, leaving uncertainty in the level of proof required to demonstrate compliance. Additionally, while it is clear the rule covers commercial premises liability policies, it is unclear whether the statute applies to other policies that may include coverage for premises liability.

Notwithstanding those issues, the new statute does provide certain ground rules to claimants and carriers for navigating time-limited demands for those claims within its scope.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

NY Federal Court Finds “Insured v. Insured” Exclusion in D&O Policy Trumps General Allocation Clause

Next Article »

No CGL Coverage for Opioid Distributor Sued for Economic Damages but Not Bodily Injury Damage

About Chad W. Dunham

Chad W. Dunham is an associate at Carlton Fields in Orlando. Connect with Chad on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. Beware the Honest Hacker: Indiana Supreme Court Finds That Bitcoin Payment Is Not Necessarily Covered Loss Under Commercial Crime Policy Because Not Every Ransomware Attack Involves Fraud
  2. Florida Supreme Court Defines Damages Recoverable by First-Party Insureds in Actions Alleging Breach of Policy
  3. No Manifestation Destiny: The Seventh Circuit Declines to Set a Standard Trigger Rule for First-Party Property Policies
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Connecticut Federal Court Construes Ambiguous Policy Exclusion in Favor of Coverage, but Rejects Bad Faith Claim
  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing