United States: California Supreme Court Holds Insurers Are Subject To Unfair Competition Claims In Zhang Case

On August 1, the California Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated decision in Zhang v. Superior Court, holding that the California Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Ins. Code §790 et seq.) does not necessarily preempt an action against an insurer under the California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 - the "UCL"). The decision greatly expands an insurer's potential exposure in California to private actions arising from conduct that, for over twenty five years, had been considered to be subject solely to the California insurance law (which does not provide for a private right of action).

In Zhang, the plaintiff sued her insurer, California Capital Insurance, over a dispute arising from a fire at her business. Zhang contended that the insurer's claim handling had been inadequate, in violation of the California Unfair Insurance Practices Act. However, recognizing that the Unfair Insurance Practices Act does not authorize a private right of action, Zhang's complaint, alleged that the insurer's advertising (in which it promised timely and proper payment of insurance claims), was "false advertising" potentially actionable under the California UCL. Before the California Supreme Court, California Capital Insurance (as well as several amici) maintained that the plaintiff's action was, in essence, a claims handling dispute, and that the court's 1988 decision in Moradi-Shalel v. Fireman's Fund acted as a bar to any private cause of action for conduct that is also covered by the Unfair Insurance Practices Act. However, the court rejected that argument, holding that "Moradi-Shalel does not preclude first party UCL actions based on grounds independent from section 790.03, even when the insurer's conduct also violates section 790.03." The court continued: [W]hile a plaintiff may not use the UCL to 'plead around' an absolute bar to relief, the [Insurance law] does not immunize insurers from UCL liability for conduct that violates other laws in addition to the [Insurance law]." In reaching this decision, the California Supreme Court further noted that Moradi-Shalel had been intended to protect against the adverse consequences of permitting a broad implied right of action for damages under the Insurance law, and that this concern should not apply because UCL remedies are more limited in scope (generally extending only to injunctive relief and restitution.)

Whether the limited remedies afforded by the UCL noted by the Court will temper plaintiff interest in bringing UCL claims against insurers remains to be seen, particularly given that UCL claims can give rise to punitive damages and, in some circumstances, an award of attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff (under a "private attorney general" theory). Time will tell; these "limited" remedies do not seem to have had any significant chilling effect on UCL actions against other entities. For now, what is clear is that plaintiff Yanting Zhang's false advertising based UCL claim returns to the trial court for further proceedings, and that future plaintiffs have just been granted a new avenue for challenging insurer conduct in the California courts.


By James M. Burns

Round one of the In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation (MDL 2406), a multi-district antitrust action brought against 38 Blue Cross & Blue Shield entities and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association that is currently pending in Birmingham, Alabama, before District Judge David Proctor, has gone to the Blues, courtesy of a ruling from another District Court Judge more than 800 miles from Birmingham. Specifically, on August 22, Judge Frederico Moreno, District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida, held that a series of settlement agreements between the Blues and over 600,000 doctors that resolved a prior litigation over which Judge Moreno had presided (In re Managed Care Litigation), barred the doctors from asserting their antitrust claims in the new MDL proceeding.

The prior case, In re Managed Care Litigation, which was commenced in 2000, concerned a challenge by a group of physicians to the level of reimbursements they received from managed care companies, including the Blues, for covered medical services. The litigation was ultimately resolved through a series of settlements reached by the parties from 2005-2007. As Judge Moreno noted in his recent decision (Musselman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama), to settle that litigation the defendants "agreed to make substantial payments to the class members and their counsel and to implement numerous business practice initiatives" and, in exchange, the defendants "received broad releases from the plaintiffs and an injunction from the Court barring releasing parties from bringing released claims" in the future.

Recognizing that these releases presented a possible obstacle to plaintiffs' claims in the In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, earlier this year the physician plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action in Miami, before Judge Moreno, requesting that he find that their antitrust claims were not released by their earlier settlement (or that the decision should await further discovery, and then be decided by Judge Proctor in Birmingham). In support of their position, the plaintiffs maintained that the claims in the new case were materially different than those in the earlier case, with the earlier case focusing on whether the managed care companies had engaged in business practices that had delayed or reduced their reimbursements, while the new case involves a claim that the Blues' trademark licensing agreements act as an unlawful agreement among the Blues not to compete with one another, thus reducing the reimbursement levels received by the physicians for their services. Defendants responded to plaintiffs' action by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint, maintaining that the earlier settlements barred plaintiffs from asserting the claims in their new action.

Siding with the Blues, Judge Moreno rejected plaintiffs' arguments in all respects, ruling that (1) the issue was properly before him, because he had retained jurisdiction in the earlier matter to hear any dispute about the interpretation, administration and consummation of the settlement agreement and (2) that plaintiffs' new claims "share the same operative nucleus of fact" with those previously raised by plaintiffs, and thus fell within the scope of the plaintiffs' release. In addition, Judge Moreno noted that the plaintiffs had agreed to release any claim that involved "any aspect of any fee for service claim," and held that plaintiffs' new antitrust claims were covered under this provision of the release as well. Finally, Judge Moreno also rejected plaintiffs' argument that, because their claims also involved post settlement conduct, the release was ineffective, stating that "Both this Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals have consistently rejected the argument that claims involving post-settlement conduct cannot be enjoined by the settlement agreements."

In light of Judge Moreno's ruling, the size and scope of the In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation - a potentially massive piece of litigation that is still in its earliest stages - has been materially reduced, with the claims of over 600,000 potential physician class members being resolved in favor of the Blues. Notwithstanding this significant development, however, the new case will undoubtedly continue, at least for now, because Judge Moreno's ruling has no apparent impact on the claims asserted by the hospital provider plaintiffs in the new case or those of the subscribers/insured class. Accordingly, the case now returns to Birmingham, and Judge Proctor, presumably for a ruling on defendants' expected motions to dismiss the claims asserted by these plaintiffs, which are expected to be filed early this fall and likely decided closer to year's end, or early next year. Stay tuned.


By James M. Burns

After almost nine years of litigation, on August 1, New Jersey District Court Judge Claire Cecchi finally brought to a close one of the highest profile antitrust cases of the new millennium - In re Insurance Brokerage Litigation - with her approval of the final settlement in the action.

The case, a consolidated multi-district litigation commenced in 2005 against insurance broker Marsh & McLennan and approximately two dozen of the nation's largest insurers and brokers, was the outgrowth of an action brought by then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer against Marsh for allegedly soliciting payments from the insurers to steer business from their clients to those insurers. Shortly after Marsh announced a settlement of the matter with the State (which included the elimination of undisclosed "contingent commissions"), numerous private actions were filed, all ultimately consolidated in the District of New Jersey before District Judge Faith Hochberg. As Judge Cecchi, who was the third district court judge to handle the matter, observed in approving the settlement, during the case class counsel had reviewed over 60 million pages of documents and taken over 300 depositions, and the matter had generated over 2400 docket entries. The case had also gone up to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (on plaintiffs' appeal of an earlier dismissal of the case granted by Judge Garrett Brown), where it had been reversed by the appellate court and returned for further proceedings.

While the final settling defendants, which included Ace, Chubb and Munich Re, agreed to pay $10.5 million to resolve the case (with over $3 million going to plaintiffs' counsel), prior settlements in the case with Marsh, Zurich Insurance, AIG and several other insurers had netted plaintiffs over $250 million, with plaintiffs' counsel receiving over $50 million in attorneys' fees in those settlements. In approving both the settlement and the award of counsel fees, Judge Cecchi noted that she had not received any objections to the proposed settlement from any class members, and that had the case continued to trial, plaintiffs faced a significant hurdle in establishing damages that would likely result in the case becoming a "battle of the experts."


By James M. Burns

On August 27, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued a ruling in State v. Acordia, Inc., reversing a lower court decision that had held insurance broker Acordia liable for violating the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The action was brought by the Connecticut AG's office, which had accused Acordia of entering into agreements with several insurers (Travelers, Hartford, Chubb, Atlantic Mutual and Royal & Sun Alliance) to steer Acordia's broker clients to these insurers in return for the insurers' payment of 1% of the premium amount to Acordia. At trial, the State alleged that Acordia's failure to inform its insured clients that it was receiving the additional commission from the insurers was a breach of its fiduciary duty, which the State maintained violated "public policy" and thus constituted unlawful conduct under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (the "UTPA"). The State also alleged that Acordia's conduct violated the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (the "UIPA"), arguing that it constituted "misleading conduct" on the part of the broker, which the UIPA expressly prohibits. The trial court ruled for the State on both claims, and Acordia appealed.

In a ruling likely to be applauded by insurers everywhere, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, holding that a UTPA claim against an entity subject to the UIPA (generally insurers and brokers) must be based upon conduct that constitutes a violation of the UIPA. Thus, because the State had failed to establish that Acordia's breach of fiduciary duty also constituted a violation of the UIPA (as opposed to the UTPA), the State's UTPA claim failed as a matter of law. (Notably, this ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court differs considerably from the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court in Zhang v. Superior Court, which took a more expansive view and held that, under California law, an unfair competition law claim can be asserted against an insurer independently from, and without regard to, whether such conduct also violates the California insurance law.)

Moreover, the Connecticut Supreme Court also held that the State's UIPA claim was insufficient as well, because the evidence presented at trial failed to show that the Acordia employees that had dealt with the broker clients were aware that Acordia had negotiated the additional payment from the insurers and thus there was no basis to conclude that their conduct was influenced by the additional payments. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision in all respects, and directed that judgment be entered for Acordia in the case.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.