🐻 California-Specific Guide

California Insurance Bad Faith Law

California offers some of the strongest protections for insurance policyholders in the nation. Learn about Brandt fees, the impact of Moradi-Shalal, and how to recover punitive damages under Civil Code Section 3294.

California's Strong Policyholder Protections

California law recognizes that insurance policies are contracts requiring good faith and fair dealing. When insurers breach this duty, California courts have developed robust remedies that go far beyond simply paying the claim.

The California Insurance Code, Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations, and extensive case law create a framework that holds insurers accountable for bad faith conduct. Here's what every California policyholder needs to know.

🐻 Key California Statutes
  • Insurance Code Section 790.03(h): Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act
  • Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10, Section 2695.1 et seq.: Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations
  • Civil Code Section 3294: Punitive damages for fraud, oppression, or malice
  • Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1: 2-year statute of limitations for bad faith

Brandt Fees: Recovering Your Attorney's Fees

One of California's most important policyholder protections is the ability to recover attorney's fees incurred in obtaining insurance benefits. Unlike most litigation where each side pays their own attorneys, California's Brandt rule levels the playing field.

Brandt v. Superior Court

(1985) 37 Cal.3d 813

The California Supreme Court held that attorney's fees incurred to obtain policy benefits that were wrongfully withheld are recoverable as damages in a bad faith action.

Key Holding: "When an insurer's tortious conduct reasonably compels the insured to retain an attorney to obtain the benefits due under a policy, it follows that the insurer should be liable in a tort action for that expense."

What Brandt Fees Cover

What Brandt Fees Don't Cover

Practice Tip: Billing Separation

If you're pursuing a bad faith case, ask your attorney to maintain separate billing for work on contract damages (recoverable under Brandt) versus tort damages (not recoverable). This protects your fee recovery.

Moradi-Shalal and Private Rights of Action

Understanding Moradi-Shalal is crucial for any California bad faith claim. This case both limited and defined how policyholders can sue insurers.

Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies

(1988) 46 Cal.3d 287

The California Supreme Court held that Insurance Code Section 790.03 does NOT create a private right of action. Policyholders cannot sue directly under the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act.

Key Holding: "A private civil action may not be maintained under Insurance Code section 790.03... The enforcement of this statute is for the Insurance Commissioner, not private litigants."

What This Means for Your Case

While you cannot sue directly under Section 790.03, this doesn't leave you without remedies. Here's how California bad faith claims actually work after Moradi-Shalal:

Common Law Bad Faith Survives

You can still sue for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing - the common law bad faith claim that existed before Section 790.03.

Section 790.03 as Evidence

While you can't sue under Section 790.03, violations can be used as evidence of bad faith in your common law claim.

Regulatory Standards Apply

The Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations help define what constitutes reasonable insurer conduct.

Full Tort Damages Available

Emotional distress, Brandt fees, and punitive damages remain available in common law bad faith actions.

Important Distinction

Moradi-Shalal only affects first-party claims (your own insurer). Third-party claims (against another person's insurer) have different rules and Royal Globe claims were separately abolished.

Punitive Damages Under Civil Code Section 3294

California allows punitive damages in insurance bad faith cases when the insurer's conduct rises to the level of fraud, oppression, or malice. These damages are designed to punish and deter particularly egregious conduct.

⚖ California Civil Code Section 3294(a)

"In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant."
Cal. Civ. Code Section 3294(a)

Definitions That Matter

What Triggers Punitive Damages in Bad Faith Cases

Courts have found punitive damages appropriate when insurers engage in:

🐻 Corporate Ratification Requirement

Under Civil Code Section 3294(b), to hold a corporate insurer liable for punitive damages, you must show the conduct was committed, authorized, or ratified by an officer, director, or managing agent - not just a claims adjuster. This can be proven through company policies, training materials, or approval by supervisors.

Damages Available in California Bad Faith Cases

Type of Damages Description Requirements
Policy Benefits The amount owed under your policy Prove coverage and amount
Consequential Damages Financial losses caused by the breach (lost income, credit damage, additional expenses) Show foreseeability and causation
Brandt Fees Attorney's fees to obtain benefits Prove bad faith and necessity of legal action
Emotional Distress Mental suffering from the bad faith conduct Testimony about impact; medical evidence helps
Punitive Damages Punishment for egregious conduct Clear and convincing evidence of fraud, malice, or oppression

California Fair Claims Settlement Practices

The Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10, Section 2695.1 et seq.) provide detailed standards for how insurers must handle claims. While violations don't create a private lawsuit (per Moradi-Shalal), they're powerful evidence of bad faith.

Key Requirements

Filing a DOI Complaint

If your insurer violates these regulations, file a complaint with the California Department of Insurance at www.insurance.ca.gov. While the DOI can't award you damages, their investigation creates an official record and may prompt the insurer to act properly.

Statute of Limitations

In California, you generally have two years to file a bad faith lawsuit. However, determining when the clock starts can be complex:

Warning: Don't Wait

Determining the exact limitations period requires legal analysis of your specific facts. If you believe your insurer acted in bad faith, consult an attorney promptly. Missing the deadline means losing your right to sue forever.

Building a Strong California Bad Faith Case

Essential Documentation

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Related Guides

California Policyholder? I Can Help.

As a California-licensed attorney, I help policyholders fight back against insurers using the full power of California law, including Brandt fees and punitive damages where appropriate.

~$450
Demand Letters
$240/hr
General Rate
Schedule a Consultation