California Supreme Court Watch

#21-217 Allied Premier Insurance v. United Financial Casualty Co., S267746. (9th Cir. No. 20-55099; 991 F.3d 1070; Central District of California No. 5:18-cv-00088-JGB-KK.) Request under California Rules of Court rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question presented is: Does a commercial automobile insurance policy continue in full force and effect under the Motor Carriers of Property Permit Act (Veh. Code, § 34600 et seq.) until the insurer cancels the corresponding Certificate of Insurance on file with the California Department of Motor Vehicles, regardless of the insurance policy’s stated expiration date? (See Transamerica v. Tab Transportation (1995) 12 Cal.4th 389.)

Request for certification granted: 5/12/2021

Case fully briefed: 1/27/2022

Cause argued and submitted: 5/25/2023

Opinion filed: 7/24/2023

See the Order Certifying Question to the Supreme Court of California.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Allied Premier Insurance v. United Financial Casualty Co. (2023) 15 Cal.5th 20.)

“The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has certified the following question for our review: Under California’s Motor Carriers of Property Permit Act (Veh. Code, § 34600 et seq.; the Act), does a commercial automobile insurance policy continue in full force and effect until the insurer cancels the corresponding Certificate of Insurance on file with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV or Department), regardless of the insurance policy’s stated expiration date? The answer is no. The terms of an insurance contract generally determine the duration of the policy’s coverage. Although an endorsement can amend the policy, neither the Act nor the specific endorsement it requires extend coverage beyond the underlying policy’s expiration date.

In Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Tab Transportation, Inc. (1995) 12 Cal.4th 389 (Transamerica), this court interpreted an earlier permitting system codified in the Public Utilities Code. We held that the policy endorsement required by that scheme did extend insurance coverage until notice of cancellation was provided to the Public Utilities Commission. However, the language in the Public Utilities Code, on which we relied in Transamerica, was not carried over when later legislation replaced the Public Utilities Code permitting scheme and amended the Vehicle Code to add the Act at issue here. As a result, Transamerica’s holding does not control the answer to the certified question.”

(fns. omitted.)

Justice Corrigan authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Liu, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.