In our Winter 2017 edition of the Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Newsletter, we summarized a request by the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to the California Supreme Court to answer certain certified questions related to California’s common law “notice prejudice rule.” In that regard, on March 22, 2017, the California Supreme Court agreed to answer the following certified questions:
The court grants the request, made pursuant to 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. Pursuant to rule 8.548(f) (5) of the California Rules of Court, this court restates the certified questions as follows: (1) "Is California's common law notice-prejudice rule a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis?" (2) "If the notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy for the purpose of choice-of-law analysis, can the notice-prejudice rule apply to the consent provision in this case?" For the purposes of briefing and oral argument, plaintiff Pitzer College is deemed the petitioner in this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(a) (6).)
Each of the firm's offices include partners, associates and a professional staff dedicated to meeting the challenge of providing the firm's clients with extraordinary service.
213.580.7958
