Edd King et al v. National General Insurance Company et al

Filing 403

ORDER re: Supplemental Briefing. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 12/22/2023. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EDD KING, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 15-cv-00313-DMR
ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

v.
NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Plaintiffs’ claims are predicated on violations of California Insurance Code § 1861.16(b),

14

which states: “An agent or representative representing one or more insurers having common

15

ownership or operating in California under common management or control shall offer, and the

16

insurer shall sell, a good driver discount policy to a good driver from an insurer within that

17

common ownership, management, or control group, which offers the lowest rates for that

18

coverage.”

19

To date, the parties have not queued up, and the court has not ruled on several fundamental

20

statutory interpretation questions related to section 1861.16(b). A determination on these legal

21

issues is necessary to analyze pending motions which raise whether (1) Plaintiffs have standing to

22

bring their claims, and (2) Plaintiffs have met their burden to certify a class under Federal Rule of

23

Civil Procedure 23.

24

The parties shall submit supplemental briefing on the following questions:

25

(1) Meaning of “control group” under California Insurance Code §1861.16(b).

26

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are all part of the same “control group” under section

27

1861.16(b). What is the statutory meaning of “control group?” Put another way, how

28

should a jury be instructed about the meaning of “control group?”

1
2

or representative(s) of which insurer(s) have a duty to offer a good driver discount

3

policy under section 1861.16(b) and when? Relatedly, which insurer(s) have a duty to

4

sell a good driver discount under the statute (for example, is it the insurer that offers

5

the policy or the insurer that offers the lowest rates for that coverage?)

6
7
8
9
10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

(2) Duty to cross-offer. How exactly does the duty to cross-offer operate? Which agent(s)

(3) Liability. Is each insurer in a control group liable for the actions of other insurers in
the control group under section 1861.16(b)? If so, how? If not, why?
(4) Comparable policies. The parties dispute the meaning of “that coverage” as used in
section 1861.16(b). What is the statutory meaning of “that coverage”? How should a
jury be instructed about the meaning of “that coverage”?
(5) Eligibility. The parties dispute whether insurers in a control group under section

12

1861.16(b) have a duty to cross-offer coverage from an affinity group plan. Explain

13

your position, including all relevant statutory and/or regulatory interpretations.

14

The NG Defendants and Plaintiffs shall address these questions by filing a supplemental

15

brief no longer than fifteen pages by January 10, 2024. Each side may file an eight-page

16

responsive brief by January 17, 2024. The briefs must meaningfully engage with the statutory and

17

regulatory language and cite authority on statutory interpretation, including legislative history as

18

appropriate.

19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 22, 2023
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
Chief Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2