Mercury Insurance Settles Decades-Long Fight with California Department of Insurance
Mercury Insurance Company has agreed to pay $41,188,505 to California, ending a two-decades long legal fight with the California Department of Insurance.
October 03, 2019 at 04:26 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This story is reprinted with permission from the Insurance Coverage Law Center, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
Mercury Insurance Company has agreed to pay $41,188,505 to California, ending a two-decades-long legal fight with the California Department of Insurance ("DOI").
The DOI said that the payment is the largest property and casualty payment in its history.
The payment resulted from a record $27.6 million penalty plus more than $8.1 million in interest. The California Supreme Court recently rejected Mercury's request for review of the case and historic fine, prompting Mercury to pay the penalty, plus interest, and to settle a second phase for $5,460,868 that had not yet been tried in the courts. The second phase involved DOI allegations about false advertising that it was preparing to prosecute under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act.
The DOI's commissioner, Ricardo Lara, said in a statement that, "This was a hard fought legal battle to protect consumers, defend Proposition 103, and make sure all insurers play by the rules in California. No insurance company is above the law."
The DOI said that, in 1998, it discovered Mercury's scheme to evade Proposition 103 protections. According to the DOI, Mercury misrepresented that its agents were brokers, implying that they worked for the consumers rather than Mercury. The DOI asserted that Mercury then illegally allowed agents to charge and collect unapproved fees directly from consumers on more than 180,000 transactions from 1999 to 2004. At the time, according to the DOI, Mercury advertised its rates as lower than the competition, but did not disclose it charged illegal broker fees on top of the rates.
The DOI alleged that the extra fees gave agents a huge incentive to place policies with Mercury, even if another insurance company's policy would have cost the consumer less.
Aside from charging consumers unfairly discriminatory rates for a Mercury insurance policy and misrepresenting the amount of its rates in comparison to its competitors, Mercury's use of unapproved fees unfairly edged its competitors out of large segments of the auto insurance market, the DOI asserted.
"Mercury's illegal actions misled consumers and undercut competitors, which gave them an unfair advantage in the insurance marketplace," Commissioner Lara added.
With respect to the alleged false advertising by Mercury, the DOI alleged that Mercury advertised its premium was lower than its competitors, when the premium was actually higher than advertised once the illegal fees were added. The DOI settled those claims for an additional $5,460,868, which included cost reimbursements for the 20 years of litigation, and a half-million dollars in additional penalties.
Of the $41 million payment, $36,227,637 in penalties and interest will be paid to the California General Fund. Nearly $5 million of the payment will repay the Proposition 103 Fund. The Proposition 103 Fund comes from a surcharge on insurance companies that they may pass through to consumers.
Learn more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInsurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
'A Wake Up Call to the Life Insurance Industry:' California Sues Insurers
3 minute readFederal Judge Sides With Lyft Driver in Contractual Dispute Over $1M Uninsured Motorist Coverage
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250