The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently issued a favorable opinion on behalf of MH’s insurance client.

In 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed alleging that MH’s client had systematically failed to comply with California statutes requiring life insurers to provide a 60-day grace period, 30-day pre-termination notice, and an annual reminder of the right to designate a secondary recipient of such notices.

After several years of litigation, MH defeated class certification – one of the first firms to do so in a case involving the California statute at issue. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on her declaratory judgment claims, arguing that she only needed to demonstrate that MH’s client failed to comply with the Statutes to obtain a declaration that her policy remained valid and enforceable despite her failure to pay policy premiums. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.

MH appealed to the Ninth Circuit arguing that the district court’s declaration that the policy remained in force without requiring plaintiff to demonstrate that the failure to comply with the statute caused her alleged harm was an overextension of California law. After years of dedicated advocacy, MH prevailed. The Ninth Circuit largely agreed with MH’s position, reversing the district court’s summary judgment order as to policy validity and enforceability and finding that the actions of MH’s client were not the legal cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

MH’s Jarrett Ganer, Renee Wilkerson, and Matt Digan litigated the successful appeal.

To read the full opinion, follow this link.