People ex rel. Fire Insurance Exchange v. Anapol
211 Cal. App. 4th 809
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Farmers alleged a massive insurance fraud ring involving false/inflated smoke-and-ash claims from Southern California wildfires.
- Attorneys Anapol and Amidon represented Farmers’ insureds and allegedly used cappers to obtain clients.
- Sims, a “catastrophe chaser,” allegedly recruited clients and arranged for attorneys to handle claims and settlements.
- Farmers claimed three schemes (2003, 2007, 2008–2009) violated Insurance Code 1871.7 and Penal Code 550-related provisions.
- The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motions, following BPC’s view that insurance claims are not protected prelitigation conduct; on appeal Farmers won the reversal that the court did not find prima facie evidence of protected prelitigation conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BPC bars insurance claims from constituting prelitigation conduct | Farmers urged BPC is distinguishable; claims can be protected | Anapol/Amidon argued claims could be protected prelitigation | Not per se barred; protected only under specific circumstances |
| Whether the attorneys showed prima facie that claims were protected prelitigation statements | Farmers contends no protection because claims not prelitigation | Anapol/Amidon contended prelitigation timing and intent | Fail to show prima facie protection; motions denied on this basis |
| Whether submitting insurance claims constitutes protected petitioning/speech under circumstances | Farmers relies on BPC and public-interest speech | Attorneys contend claims were protected as prelitigation/petitioning | No protection here; not the gravamen or acts of petitioning/speech under the evidence presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Beach v. Harco National Ins. Co., 110 Cal.App.4th 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (no petitioning activity where dispute predated arbitration and claim submission)
- Kajima Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 95 Cal.App.4th 921 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (submission of regular business claims not protected petitioning conduct)
- Beijing? (placeholder), 0 Cal.App.4th 0 (Cal. Ct. App. 0) (placeholder)
- BPC v. Building Permit Consultants, Inc., 86 Cal.App.4th 280 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (insurance claim documents submitted to insurer; not protected prelitigation conduct)
- Neville v. Chudacoff, 160 Cal.App.4th 1255 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (prelitigation communications may be protected when in good faith anticipation of litigation)