The Supreme Court today overrules its own 12-year-old, 6-1 decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934, holding that a statute not considered in Henkel leads to a different conclusion about when an insurance carrier can object to an insured’s transfer or assignment of a claim for insurance coverage. The court’s unanimous opinion in Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court, written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, finds that the statute “bars an insurer from refusing to honor an insured’s assignment of policy coverage regarding injuries that predate the assignment.” [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy represents the real party in interest, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company.]
Of the current members of the court, only Justice Kathryn Werdegar participated — and concurred — in the court’s Henkel decision. Retired Justice Carlos Moreno was the lone dissenter.
The court today reverses the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three.
