SCHWARTZ v. POIZNER
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>SCHWARTZ v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >SCHWARTZ v. POIZNER</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 7/28/10;<br /> pub. order 8/12/10<br /> (see end of opn.)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>FIRST<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> THREE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>RICK L.<br /> SCHWARTZ et al.,<br /> <br/> Plaintiffs and Appellants,<br /> <br/>v.<br /> <br/>STEVE<br /> POIZNER, as Insurance Commissioner, etc.,<br /> <br/> Defendant and Respondent.<br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> A126217<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (City & County of San<br /> Francisco<br /> <br/> Super. Ct.<br /> No. CGC-05-446073)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> In<br /> October 2005, following an extensive investigation, the Commissioner of the<br /> California Department of Insurance (the Commissioner)<br /> entered into a settlement agreement with a number of related<br /> insurance companies (the insurers) resolving allegations that the insurers'<br /> claims-handling procedures violated the Insurance Code.[1] In the present action,<br /> plaintiff Rick Schwartz alleges numerous causes of action against the insurers<br /> who are parties to the settlement<br /> agreement, and also petitions for a writ of mandate directed at the<br /> Commissioner. Plaintiff purports to represent classes of California residents<br /> holding disability income policies issued by the insurers who, like him,<br /> submitted no claims under their policies but allegedly were overcharged for<br /> their policies in view of the insurers' unlawfully restrictive claims<br /> procedures and who received no benefit under the terms of the settlement<br /> agreement. Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing the petition for a writ of mandate, which sought to compel<br /> the Commissioner to pursue additional remedies against the insurers that will<br /> inure to the benefit of class members. [2] He contends the trial court erred in concluding that the<br /> Commissioner does not have a ministerial duty to seek the additional relief and<br /> abused its discretion in failing to seek that relief. We disagree and shall<br /> affirm the order dismissing the action against the Commissioner. <br /> <br/><b >Factual and<br /> Procedural History</b><br /> <br/> The<br /> settlement agreement between the Commissioner and insurers established a claims<br /> reassessment process under which previously denied claims for disability income<br /> benefits could be resubmitted for re-evaluation. The agreement also imposed an<br /> $8 million penalty and required changes to the insurers' claims-handling<br /> procedures and to the language of their insurance policies. As a result of the<br /> reassessment process, approximately $230.2 million in additional benefits will<br /> be paid to policyholders that made claims. The settlement agreement does not<br /> include any express benefits for policyholders who, like plaintiff, had not<br /> submitted a claim for benefits under the relevant policies.<br /> <br/> Plaintiff's<br /> second amended complaint alleges that the insurers' â€