In plaintiff-Association of California Insurance Companies’ lawsuit disputing the validity of the 2006 amendments to regulations permitting consumer interest interveners to obtain compensation for participation in the administrative rate-setting process where an order or decision is issued by the Commissioner on an insurer’s rate-setting application without a formal rate hearing is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs have failed to establish that the amended regulations are inconsistent with the governing statutes, and the trial court properly rendered a judgment denying their petition for a peremptory writ of mandate; and 2) plaintiffs fail to show that the trial court erred in awarding Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights compensation payable by them.
Read Ass’n of California Ins. Co. v. Poizner, No. B208402 [HTML]
Read Ass’n of California Ins. Co. v. Poizner, No. B208402 [PDF]
Appellate Information
Filed December 30, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Mallano
CounselFor Appellant: Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad, Mitchell C. Tilner; Barger & Wolen, Robert W. Hogeboom, Suh Choi and Michael A. S. Newman
For Appellee: Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, W. Dean Freeman and Felix E. Leatherwood, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, Diane Spencer Shaw and Christine Zarifian, Deputy Attorneys General
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
