California Court of Appeal, Fox Paine & Company, LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, A168803

Waiver

 

California Law

 

 

 

We described waiver at some length in Antonopoulos v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 580, 599−600: “Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right after knowledge of the facts.’ [Citations.] The burden. . . is on the party claiming a waiver of a right to prove it by clear and convincing evidence that does not leave the matter to speculation, and ‘doubtful cases will be decided against a waiver’ [citation].” . . .  The waiver may be either express, based on the words of the waiving party, or implied, based on conduct indicating an intent to relinquish the right.’ (Waller [, supra,] 11 Cal.4th [at p.] 31). Our Supreme Court has recognized that these general waiver rules apply in the context of an insurer relinquishing its right to deny coverage. ([Ibid.]) The Monteleone v. Allstate Ins Co. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 509 court recognized the same: ‘Waiver requires the insurer to intentionally relinquish its right to deny coverage. [Citation.]’.”

 

(…) As we put it in Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1535, “waiver” “cannot be reconciled with the integration clauses of the contract” providing that the contract “‘may not be modified or amended by oral agreement, or course of conduct, but only by an agreement in writing signed by the parties.’”

 

 

 

 

(California Court of Appeal, Sept. 5, 2024, Fox Paine & Company, LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, A168803, Certified for Publication)