Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Discoverability and Admissibility of Reserve Information

By Kirk A. Pasich
March 27, 2008

Insureds and insurance carriers typically dispute the discoverability and admissibility of evidence of a carrier's reserves. In Lipton v. Superior Court, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1599, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 341 (1996), the California Court of Appeal defined reserves, stating that they represent the amount anticipated to be sufficient to pay all obligations for which the insurance company may be responsible under the policy with respect to a particular claim. That amount necessarily includes expenses that are likely to be incurred in connection with the settlement or adjustment of the claim, as well as the legal fees and other costs required to defend the insured. Id. at 1613.

The Lipton court also stated that '[t]he main purpose of a loss reserve is to comply with statutory requirements and to reflect, as accurately as possible, the insured's potential liability.' Id. See also Cal. Ins. Code '923.5 ('reserves' are the amounts 'estimated in the aggregate to provide for the payment of all losses and claims for which the insurer may be liable and to provide for the expense of adjustment or settlement of losses and claims'); Treas. Reg. '1.832-4(b) (for federal tax purposes, insurance carrier reserves 'must be stated in amounts which, based upon the facts in each case and the company's experience with similar cases, represents a fair and reasonable estimate of the amount the company would be required to pay'); MacGregor Yacht Corp. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 63 Cal. App. 4th 448, 457, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 473 (1998) (an insurance carrier's standard for reserves that was based on a 'realistic evaluation of all information in the file which reflects the reasonably anticipated final costs' satisfies the carrier's duties under Insurance Code).

Insureds contend that information regarding reserves is relevant to a wide range of issues, including a carrier's ability to pay, when a carrier received notice of or learned about claims, and whether a carrier acted in bad faith. Carriers typically disagree, contending that reserve information is confidential and is irrelevant to disputes with their insureds.

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?