Jonathan B. Sokol

Partner
Fax 310.201.2323
PRINTPDF

Insurance Protection for Losses May Be Freely Assigned in Connection with a Corporate Sale or Reorganization

August 21, 2015Article
Greenberg Blawg

On August 20, 2015, the California Supreme Court handed down its much-anticipated decision in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company). The court held that Insurance Code §520, a seldom cited provision of the Insurance Code dating back to 1935, bars an insurer from refusing to honor a policyholder’s assignment of policy coverage regarding injuries or damages that pre-date the assignment. In the process, the high court overruled its 2003 decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 29 Cal.4th 934, which had held that when a liability policy contains a “consent-to-assignment” clause (a standard provision in pre-1985 policy forms), the policyholder may not assign its rights to policy benefits without the insurer’s consent until the claim against the insured is reduced to a judgment or settlement with the claimant.