Mills v. AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah Ins. Exchange

Insurer is entitled to summary judgment against a claim under an auto insurance policy which the insurer had canceled before an accident, due to the insured’s failure to respond within 30 days to written inquiry whether the insured wanted his driving age son to be included as an insured under the policy, since that information was reasonably necessary to underwrite the riskUnder Ins. Code 1861.03(c)(1), an insurer may cancel an auto insurance policy if there is a substantial increase in the insured risk.  Insurance Department regulations define substantial increase to include the insured’s failure to respond within 30 days to the insurer’s reasonable written request for information necessary to accurately underwrite or classify the risk.  Here, the trial court correctly granted the insurer summary judgment against a claim under an auto insurance policy which the insurer had canceled before the accident due to the insured’s failure to answer the insurer’s written inquiry whether the insured wanted his driving age son to be included as an insured under the policy.  That information was reasonably necessary to underwrite the risk, and the insured’s failure to answer the question justified the cancellation of the policy.

California Court of Appeal, Third District (Nicholson, Acting P.J.); September 20, 2016 (partial publication); 2016 WL 5092708

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s