Rosen v. State Farm General Insurance Company (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1070

Horvitz & Levy LLP participated in this case as counsel for amicus curiae in support of defendant State Farm General Insurance Company. The question presented was whether a court may rewrite clear and unambiguous policy language based on public policy considerations where the policy language in question is not prohibited by statute.

The insured alleged that the decks of his home were in a state of imminent collapse and that State Farm improperly denied his claim for the cost to repair the decks. The State Farm policy expressly provided that it covered only actual collapse, not imminent collapse. The trial court held that public policy required that the collapse coverage also include imminent collapse, and entered judgment in favor of plaintiff.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Brown, held that a court may not invalidate unambiguous policy language on the basis of public policy and that the Court of Appeal consequently erred "by failing to apply the plain, unambiguous language of the policy." The concurring opinion, authored by Justice Moreno and joined by Justices Kennard and Werdegar, agreed that the insurance policy clause at issue did not violate public policy, but stated that courts should not be forbidden from employing public policy when determining how insurance policy clauses are to be interpreted and enforced.

Home | Firm Directory | About H & L | Practice Areas | H & L News
Seminars | Publications | Recruiting | Directions | Links | Site Map