Sjobring v. First Am. Title Ins. Co. CA2/3, B293732

Background

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Sjobring and Wendy Kaufman bought owner and concurrent lender title-insurance policies from First American and allege they were overcharged compared with First American’s rate filings with the California Department of Insurance (CDI).
The contested pricing turns on whether certain owner policies (notably the EAGLE Owner’s Policy) are classified as "standard" or "extended" coverage in defendants’ filed schedules; that classification affects the lender-policy premium when policies are sold together.
Trial court granted defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings, concluding plaintiffs’ claims impermissibly challenged the "making and use" of filed rates and were barred by Insurance Code § 12414.26 (immunity for conduct pursuant to Articles 5.5/5.7). The court also took limited judicial notice of rate filings and related correspondence.
Defendants also asserted a scrivener’s-error defense (that Kaufman’s filed schedule misclassified the loan policy) and relied on administrative remedies before the CDI as the proper forum.
The Court of Appeal, applying the California Supreme Court’s decision in Villanueva, held plaintiffs’ suits challenge the collection of unauthorized rates (not ratemaking authorized by Articles 5.5/5.7), involve factual questions about policy classification, and are not barred by § 12414.26; it reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 12414.26 bar a private suit alleging the insurer charged more than its filed rates?	Sjobring/Kaufman: No — § 12414.26 only immunizes conduct actually authorized by Articles 5.5/5.7; charging more than a filed rate is prohibited (§ 12414.27).	First American: Yes — challenges implicate ratemaking/use of filed rates and are therefore immune.	Held: § 12414.26 does not shield conduct that Articles 5.5/5.7 do not authorize; charging unauthorized/unfiled rates is not immunized (per Villanueva).
Is determining whether an owner policy is "standard" or "extended" a nonjusticiable ratemaking question for the CDI?	Plaintiffs: No — policy classification is a factual/contractual question courts routinely decide and determines what filed rate should have been charged.	Defendants: Yes — classification is intrinsic to filed rates and thus implicates rate-setting reserved to CDI.	Held: Classification is a factual issue about the nature of the policy (not rate-setting) and cannot be resolved on judgment on the pleadings here.
Did Kaufman receive the filed/no-charge rate or did a scrivener’s error justify charging $710?	Kaufman: The filed schedule classified the EAGLE loan policy as standard and provided no charge for a concurrent loan policy; she paid an unauthorized charge.	First American: The filed schedule contained a scrivener’s error; the loan policy was actually extended and the charged amount was the filed rate.	Held: Existence and effect of a scrivener’s error are disputed factual matters not established on the face of the pleadings/judicially noticed records; cannot grant judgment on the pleadings.
Are administrative remedies before the Insurance Commissioner the exclusive remedy for alleged unauthorized charges?	Plaintiffs: No — administrative proceedings are not exclusive and cannot provide class restitution.	First American: Yes — article 6.7 provides the Commissioner-exclusive forum for rate disputes.	Held: Not exclusive. Villanueva holds administrative proceedings are not consumers’ sole remedy; private suits can seek restitution.

Key Cases Cited

Villanueva v. Fidelity Nat. Title Co., 11 Cal.5th 104 (Sup. Ct. 2021) (statutory immunity under § 12414.26 does not shield charging unauthorized or unfiled rates; administrative remedy not exclusive)
People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2015) (statutory interpretation principles; de novo review of statute construction)
Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 51 Cal.3d 120 (Cal. 1990) (standard for reviewing demurrers and whether a complaint states a cause of action)