{"id":891626,"date":"2017-02-10T10:00:17","date_gmt":"2017-02-10T17:00:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=891626"},"modified":"2017-02-10T10:00:17","modified_gmt":"2017-02-10T17:00:17","slug":"californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/","title":{"rendered":"California\u2019s High Court Gives Insurance Regulators Tools To Broaden Authority"},"content":{"rendered":"

Robert D. Helfand | PropertyCasualtyFocus<\/a> | January 27, 2017<\/p>\n

Nearly two years ago, a California appellate court invalidated a rule promulgated by the state\u2019s Insurance Commissioner, on the ground that the regulator lacks authority to prohibit \u201cdeceptive acts or practices\u201d which are not already<\/em> identified in California\u2019s Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), Cal. Ins. Code \u00a7\u00a7 790 et seq<\/em>. This week, in Assoc. of Cal. Ins. Cos. v. Jones<\/em>, S22659 (Cal. Jan. 23, 2017), the Supreme Court of California unanimously reversed that decision, reinstating a rule that effectively creates a statutory tort for property insurers, <\/strong>if their replacement cost estimates fail to conform to the Commissioner\u2019s guidelines. Although the new decision declared that the lower court had read the scope of Commissioner\u2019s rulemaking<\/em> authority too narrowly, the outcome of the case actually turned on an expansive view of a different power: the Commissioner\u2019s ability to identify \u201cstatements\u201d that violate the UIPA, because they are \u201cuntrue, deceptive, or misleading.\u201d By endorsing the use of that power to prescribe the manner in which a business operation must be carried out, the court provided the regulator with a potentially powerful tool.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s Tough To Make Predictions<\/h2>\n

Wildfires are a recurring feature of life in California. In the 1990s and 2000s, large numbers of wildfire victims discovered that their property insurance policies would not cover the full cost of repairing or replacing their homes. In many of those cases, policy limits had been set on the basis of an estimate of future replacement costs that had been provided by the insurer.<\/p>\n

Several different causes produced these cases of \u201cunderinsurance<\/strong>.\u201d To begin with, replacement costs can spike when many homes in the same area are damaged at the same time. In some instances, the mass damage also occurred in remote or unusual locations, creating conditions (such as restricted access) that were not adequately factored into the standard models for estimating replacement costs. In other cases, the insured had failed to understand that the actual<\/em> calculation of replacement cost at the time of a loss would take account of any depreciation of the property since the sale of the policy. In still others, the policyholder simply failed to comply with conditions on the replacement coverage.<\/p>\n

California\u2019s Legislature made repeated attempts to remedy this problem: in 2005, for example, it prohibited insurers who promise to pay \u201creplacement cost\u201d from making any deduction for \u201cphysical depreciation,\u201d and it extended the insured\u2019s time to comply with policy conditions in some cases. Cal. Ins. Code, \u00a7 2051.5. Nevertheless, when the state\u2019s Insurance Commissioner conducted a market conduct examination of four large insurers, he found that most of the homes affected by wildfires in 2007 had less coverage than would actually be needed to rebuild them.<\/p>\n

In April 2010, the Commissioner gave notice of a proposed rule that would require insurers who provide replacement cost estimates in connection with the sale or renewal of property policies to \u201cinclude the expenses that would reasonably be incurred to rebuild the insured structure.\u201d The proposed rule was modified in response to comments, and the final rule was promulgated in December 2010. 10 CCR \u00a7 2695.183.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s In The Rule<\/h2>\n

The Commissioner\u2019s Rule contains several provisions governing the contents<\/strong> of any estimate of replacement costs. It specifies four categories of expense (including contractors\u2019 \u201coverhead and profit\u201d)\u00a0that must be included in every estimate, and eleven features of the insured structure that every estimate has to \u201cconsider[].\u201d<\/p>\n

It also requires insurers to re-evaluate the process often: \u201cno less frequently than annually,\u201d each insurer must \u201ctake reasonable steps to verify that the sources and methods used to generate the estimate \u2026 are kept current.\u201d<\/p>\n

Separately, the rule declares that any estimate which does not \u201ccomport\u201d with these content requirements constitutes \u201cmaking a statement with respect to the business of insurance which is misleading and which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known to be misleading.\u201d That declaration means that a non-conforming estimate is one of the \u201cunfair and deceptive acts or practices\u201d that are prohibited by Section 790.03(b) of the UIPA.<\/p>\n

This fact is important, because (among other reasons) California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code \u00a7\u00a7 17200 et seq<\/em>., \u201cborrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that \u2026 [it] makes independently actionable<\/strong>.\u201d Cordas v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.<\/em>, 2012 WL 5902914, at *6 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2012). Any consumer who has suffered an \u201cinjury in fact\u201d may seek injunctive relief and disgorgement under the Unfair Competition Law, either individually or on behalf of a putative class.<\/p>\n

For this reason, the effect of the Commissioner\u2019s rule is to create a new category of statutory tort: insurers who fail to prepare estimates in precisely the way the Commissioner has prescribed, or who fail to take what a policyholder considers \u201creasonable steps\u201d to verify its sources, are subject to suits (including class action suits) in which plaintiffs may seek both the return of premiums and significant attorneys\u2019 fees.<\/p>\n

Sez Who?<\/h2>\n

The new rule was challenged in a declaratory judgment action brought by two trade associations, the Association of California Insurance Companies\u00a0<\/strong>and the Personal Insurance Federation of California. Among other things, the plaintiffs asserted that the Commissioner lacked any statutory authority to create new categories of \u201cunfair and deceptive acts\u201d under the UIPA.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Section 790.03 of that statute specifically identifies several different categories of proscribed conduct, including, in Subsection (b):<\/p>\n

[m]aking or disseminating or causing to be made or disseminated \u2026 in any \u2026 manner or means whatsoever, any statement \u2026 with respect to the business of insurance \u2026 which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue, deceptive, or misleading.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The California Insurance Commissioner is authorized to enforce these prohibitions in several ways. Under Section 790.05, he can commence an administrative hearing against any person he suspects of committing any of the unfair acts that are \u201cdefined in Section 790.03.\u201d The hearing can result in penalties under Section 790.35.<\/p>\n

If the Commissioner believes an insurer is engaged in conduct that \u201cis not<\/em><\/strong> defined in Section 790.03,\u201d but which the Commissioner nevertheless considers to be \u201cunfair or deceptive,\u201d he can initiate a similar proceeding. In that case, however, his remedy is limited to injunctive relief<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Finally, under Section 790.10, the Commissioner may<\/p>\n

promulgate reasonable rules and regulations, and amendments and additions thereto, as are necessary to administer this article<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the declaratory judgment action, the plaintiffs argued that the issuance of a non-conforming estimate of replacement costs constitutes conduct that \u201cis not defined in Section 790.03.\u201d They contended that the Commissioner could properly address that conduct in a proceeding under Section 790.06, but not <\/em>by enacting a rule that adds to the list of deceptive acts created by the Legislature.<\/p>\n

In The Court Of Appeal<\/h2>\n

The plaintiffs succeeded in both the trial court and the Court of Appeal. The appellate court rejected the Commissioner\u2019s argument that the rule merely \u201cadminister[s]\u201d the statutory prohibition against \u201cuntrue, deceptive, or misleading\u201d statements, finding that the argument \u201cproves too much\u201d:<\/p>\n

If that were the case, there would be no need for the Regulation because \u2026 the Commissioner \u2026 would already have had the means in section 790.05 to assess penalties and issue a cease and desist order against a licensee \u2026 [who] had given a lowball or incomplete estimate \u2026 .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Assoc. of Cal. Ins. Cos. v. Jones<\/em>, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 788 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).<\/p>\n

The court further ruled that the Commissioner could not use his rulemaking authority to address conduct that has not <\/em>been defined as unfair by the Legislature. It observed that an earlier, un-enacted version of Section 790.10 authorized the Commissioner to issue rules to \u201cimplement,\u201d rather than to \u201cadminister,\u201d the statutory terms. The plaintiffs argued that the language the Legislature rejected would have given \u201ca broader grant of power,\u201d and the court apparently agreed. It found:<\/p>\n

The language of the UIPA reveals the Legislature\u2019s intent to set forth in the statute<\/strong> what \u2026 practices are prohibited, and not delegate<\/strong> that function to the Commissioner.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As additional support for that conclusion, the Court of Appeal reasoned that Section 790.06 of the UIPA would be rendered \u201csuperfluous<\/strong>,\u201d if the Commissioner could simply declare new conduct to be within the scope of Section 790.03.<\/p>\n

In The Supreme Court<\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court disagreed with every point of that analysis. Describing Section 790.10, the court found that \u201c[w]hat authority the Legislature conferred here appears to be quite broad<\/strong>,\u201d and it cited other cases in which it had interpreted language it deemed to be similar in favor of state regulators. In this context, the court did not \u201cperceive \u2026 [a] slight difference in wording\u201d (whether between the UIPA and other statutes, or between \u201cimplement\u201d and \u201cadminister\u201d) to \u201cevince any substantial distinction in the power the Legislature conveyed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Notably, however, the statutory language that the court used to justify its conclusion about the breadth of the Commissioner\u2019s rulemaking authority did not<\/em> come from the provision (Section 790.10) which granted that authority. It came from Section 790.03\u2014the section that lists prohibited acts. The court noted that the Commissioner may enact rules to administer \u201cthis article\u201d\u2014i.e.<\/em>, the entire UIPA\u2014and it went on to observe that the UIPA<\/p>\n

includes the prohibition in [\u00a7 790.03(b)] on making or disseminating any <\/em>untrue, deceptive, or misleading statements with respect to the business of insurance. \u2026<\/p>\n

Where, as here, the Legislature uses open-ended language<\/strong> that implicates policy choices of the sort the agency is empowered to make, a court may find the Legislature delegated the task of interpreting or elaborating on the statutory text to the administrative agency<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The real engine of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision, in other words, was a finding that the disputed regulation \u201cdoes not address an unfair \u2026 practice \u2018that is not defined in Section 790.03,\u2019\u201d and, rather, that it<\/p>\n

does no more than identify a specific class of offending statements within the general statutory prohibition<\/strong> [in Section 790.03(b)] on any <\/em>untrue, deceptive, or misleading statements in connection with the business of insurance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, the court held that the rule was designed to \u201cinterpret, or make specific<\/strong>\u201d the list of prohibitions provided in Section 790.03\u2014not to add to that list.<\/p>\n

The notion that a non-conforming cost estimate is merely a specific type of \u201cuntrue, deceptive or misleading\u201d statement is subject to two important objections. First, as the plaintiffs pointed out in their brief, some<\/em> estimates of future replacement costs might fail to conform to the Commissioner\u2019s standard and still turn out to be correct. Those estimates would not be \u201cuntrue, deceptive, or misleading\u201d\u2014at least within the ordinary meaning of those words.<\/p>\n

This possibility that the rule is overinclusive did not affect the court\u2019s decision, however, because the plaintiffs were mounting a \u201cfacial\u201d challenge to the regulation, rather than a claim based on the rule as applied<\/em>. \u201cA facial challenge [to a law or regulation] is \u2018the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that<\/strong> no set of circumstances exists<\/strong> under which the [law] would be valid<\/strong>.\u2019\u201d T.H. v. San Diego Unified School Dist.<\/em>, 122 Cal.App.4th 1267 (2004). Thus, the Supreme Court ruled:<\/p>\n

Because the [plaintiffs] \u2026 advanced only a facial challenge to the Regulation, [their] burden was to show, at the least, that a noncompliant estimate would not be misleading in the generality or vast majority of cases. [Plaintiffs] ha[ve] not carried [their] burden.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Secondly, as the Court of Appeal pointed out, an \u201cestimate\u201d of future costs is not a promise or a guarantee; the fact that it ultimately turns out to be inaccurate does not, by itself, mean the estimate was \u201cuntrue\u201d or \u201cmisleading.\u201d The Supreme Court\u2019s response to that argument boils down to an assertion that the Commissioner has identified the \u201ccost components\u201d that are \u201dessential<\/strong>\u201d to make any <\/em><\/strong>estimate of future repairs reasonable:<\/p>\n

\u00a0[T]he defect sought to be remedied by the Regulation is<\/em><\/strong> not<\/strong><\/em> the possibility that actual costs \u2026 may not align with estimated costs. Rather, the Regulation seeks to reduce the\u00a0<\/strong>possibility that an estimate would be misleading<\/strong> by ensuring that the estimate include all that is reasonably knowable<\/strong> about actual costs at the time the insurance contract is executed. \u2026 The Commissioner could reasonably conclude that replacement cost estimates are likely to mislead the public about the actual cost of repair or replacement<\/strong> when they willfully omit cost components essential to repairing or rebuilding a dwelling<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This argument does not quite shake free of the lower court\u2019s point that an inaccurate prediction is not necessarily a misleading one. In fact, despite the Supreme Court\u2019s denial, this paragraph shows that the \u201cdefect\u201d the regulation seeks to remedy is precisely <\/em><\/strong>the possibility that the estimate will turn out to be inaccurate. What other defect is addressed by \u201censuring that the estimate include all that is reasonably knowable\u201d about replacement costs? What else would it mean to \u201cmislead\u201d the public about \u201cthe actual cost of repair\u201d?<\/p>\n

What the Supreme Court assumed, however, is that the Commissioner has hit upon the one and only method for making a cost estimate reasonably and in good faith<\/strong>\u2014all other methods being \u201clikely<\/strong>\u201d to diverge from the \u201cactual cost of repair.\u201d Importantly, however, the Commissioner did not<\/em><\/strong> purport to promulgate this rule under a statutory directive to determine what the best method for estimating repair costs might be. The Legislature could have<\/em><\/strong> instructed the Commissioner to make that determination, since (as the Supreme Court acknowledged) it specifically addressed the problem of underinsurance for victims of wildfires in 2004 and 2005. But it did not do so.<\/p>\n

In the absence of that authority, the Commissioner independently made a determination about how cost estimates ought to be prepared, and then enforced it under his power to act against deliberate falsehoods<\/strong>\u2014statements that are knowingly<\/strong> \u201cuntrue, deceptive, or misleading.\u201d The Supreme Court\u2019s slightly tangled argument approved that procedure.<\/p>\n

How Far Can They Go?<\/h2>\n

In connection with last month\u2019s decision from Minnesota, this blog predicted\u00a0there will be more battles in the near future over the power of regulators to control aspects of the insurance business that are common to other, unregulated industries.<\/p>\n

In that case (Matter of the Petition of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, Inc<\/em>., 41 Minn. State Register 830 (Dec. 7, 2016)), an administrative law judge ruled that a review of insurers\u2019 diversity practices was not<\/em><\/strong> authorized by a statute which allowed Minnesota\u2019s Commissioner of Commerce to investigate matters relating to \u201cthe duties and responsibilities entrusted to\u201d him. The result might have been different, however, if the Commissioner had relied on a statute that granted broad rule-making<\/strong> authority\u2014such as a statute from North Carolina, which expressly authorizes regulators to adopt \u201crules that define<\/em><\/strong> unfair methods of competition<\/strong> or unfair or deceptive \u2026 [insurance] practices.\u201d N.C. G.S.A. \u00a7 58-63-65. See also<\/em> Wash. Ins. Code \u00a7 48.30.010(2); 24-A Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 2151-B. Or one from Texas, granting power to make \u201crules \u2026 necessary to implement and augment<\/em> the purposes<\/em><\/strong> and provisions of this subchapter.\u201d Tex. Ins. Code \u00a7 542.014.<\/p>\n

The rulemaking authorization in California\u2019s UIPA is narrower than those provisions, and the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Jones <\/em>did not announce a particularly expansive reading of it. On the other hand, the court\u2019s emphasis on the UIPA\u2019s prohibition against \u201cany<\/em><\/strong>\u201d misleading statement \u201cwith respect to the business of insurance\u201d suggests that statements made in connection with such generic business functions as procurement or employment\u2014and, almost certainly, marketing\u2014could still be fair game for regulation.<\/p>\n

In Jones<\/em>, the Commissioner developed what he considers the best method for carrying out a particular business process<\/strong>\u2014predicting the cost of future repairs\u2014and then mandated compliance with that method under a statute governing \u201cstatements\u201d that are knowingly<\/strong> \u201cuntrue\u201d or \u201cmisleading.\u201d The fact that California\u2019s Supreme Court endorsed that approach to regulation means aggressive regulators will have plenty to work with.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Robert D. Helfand | PropertyCasualtyFocus | January 27, 2017 Nearly two years ago, a California appellate court invalidated a rule promulgated by the state\u2019s Insurance Commissioner, on the ground that the regulator lacks authority to prohibit \u201cdeceptive acts or practices\u201d which are not already identified in California\u2019s Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), Cal. Ins. Code… Continue reading California\u2019s High Court Gives Insurance Regulators Tools To Broaden Authority<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3],"tags":[9895,88,9902],"class_list":["post-891626","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance-claims","tag-advise-consult","tag-california","tag-insurance-regulators","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nCalifornia\u2019s High Court Gives Insurance Regulators Tools To Broaden Authority - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The fact that California\u2019s Supreme Court endorsed that approach to regulation means aggressive regulators will have plenty to work with\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"California\u2019s High Court Gives Insurance Regulators Tools To Broaden Authority - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The fact that California\u2019s Supreme Court endorsed that approach to regulation means aggressive regulators will have plenty to work with\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-02-10T17:00:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"California\u2019s High Court Gives Insurance Regulators Tools To Broaden Authority\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-02-10T17:00:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/\"},\"wordCount\":2631,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"california\",\"Insurance Regulators\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance Claims\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/\",\"name\":\"California\u2019s High Court Gives Insurance Regulators Tools To Broaden Authority - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-02-10T17:00:17+00:00\",\"description\":\"The fact that California\u2019s Supreme Court endorsed that approach to regulation means aggressive regulators will have plenty to work with\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"California\u2019s High Court Gives Insurance Regulators Tools To Broaden Authority - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"The fact that California\u2019s Supreme Court endorsed that approach to regulation means aggressive regulators will have plenty to work with","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"California\u2019s High Court Gives Insurance Regulators Tools To Broaden Authority - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"The fact that California\u2019s Supreme Court endorsed that approach to regulation means aggressive regulators will have plenty to work with","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2017-02-10T17:00:17+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"California\u2019s High Court Gives Insurance Regulators Tools To Broaden Authority","datePublished":"2017-02-10T17:00:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/"},"wordCount":2631,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","california","Insurance Regulators"],"articleSection":["Insurance Claims"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/","name":"California\u2019s High Court Gives Insurance Regulators Tools To Broaden Authority - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-02-10T17:00:17+00:00","description":"The fact that California\u2019s Supreme Court endorsed that approach to regulation means aggressive regulators will have plenty to work with","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/californias-high-court-gives-insurance-regulators-tools-broaden-authority\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3JX4","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891626","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=891626"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891626\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":891627,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/891626\/revisions\/891627"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=891626"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=891626"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=891626"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}