Insurance Transparency Authority Library
Move from a reform proposition to the rule, statute, form, case, or court practice that actually supports it — and distinguish current law from the repair we propose.
The library is designed around a simple publication rule: no advocacy proposition should outrun its authority. Current law, practice examples, case holdings, and model legislation are separate layers.
/reform/authorities#ca-ccp-2017-210 — and this page then routes the reader to the official source. That gives us one place to update authority links when government websites change.Federal Baseline
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1
Just, speedy, inexpensive determination
Federal civil rules are administered to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution.
Use / limit: Principle-level authority; not an independent disclosure mandate.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv)
Automatic insurance agreement disclosure
Without awaiting a discovery request, a party must make available any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may satisfy, indemnify, or reimburse a possible judgment.
Use / limit: Core national comparison point. Verify current rule text before quoting a deadline.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C)
Timing of initial disclosures
Initial disclosures are ordinarily due within 14 days after the Rule 26(f) conference unless a different time is set by stipulation or court order.
Use / limit: Timing can be modified; do not state as universal without the rule exceptions.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)
Protective orders
A court may issue protective orders for good cause to protect against annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.
Use / limit: Useful counterpoint: disclosure and privacy protection can coexist.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)
Discovery planning conference
Parties confer early to plan discovery and disclosures.
Use / limit: Context for timing of federal initial disclosures.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)
Signature and reasonable inquiry
A disclosure signature certifies, after reasonable inquiry, that the disclosure is complete and correct as of the time made.
Use / limit: Useful design analogue for a proposed Coverage Search Record; do not suggest Rule 26(g) presently governs pre-suit requests.
Fed. R. Evid. 411
Liability insurance evidence
Evidence of liability insurance is generally not admissible to prove negligence or wrongful conduct, although it may be admissible for another purpose.
Use / limit: Discovery/disclosure and admissibility are separate questions.
California Statutes, Rules & Forms
CCP § 2017.210
Insurance agreement discovery
A party may discover the existence and contents of insurance agreements that may satisfy a judgment, including carrier identity and nature and limits of coverage; coverage-dispute existence may be discovered but not its substance.
Use / limit: Post-filing party discovery statute; does not create general pre-suit claimant disclosure.
CCP § 2031.020
Plaintiff timing for inspection demands
A plaintiff generally may serve document inspection demands 10 days after service of summons or appearance, whichever occurs first; earlier discovery may be allowed for good cause.
Use / limit: Illustrates that obtaining party discovery ordinarily presupposes filing/service or appearance.
CCP § 2030.020
Plaintiff timing for interrogatories
A plaintiff generally may serve interrogatories 10 days after service of summons or appearance; earlier discovery may be allowed for good cause.
Use / limit: Same litigation-gate comparison; exceptions and special proceedings must be considered.
CCP § 999
Time-limited demand policy and definition
California declares prompt settlement beneficial and defines a time-limited demand as a pre-complaint or pre-arbitration limits demand.
Use / limit: Useful asymmetry: detailed pre-suit settlement-demand rules do not themselves create a broad pre-suit coverage-architecture disclosure regime.
CCP § 999.1
Required terms of time-limited demand
Specifies minimum response periods and material terms for a statutory time-limited demand, including a complete release and reasonable proof.
Use / limit: Do not conflate with an insurance disclosure statute.
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.724
Meet and confer before CMC
Parties must meet and confer before the case management conference regarding case-management subjects.
Use / limit: Court website may return bot-protection errors to automated tools; URL is official.
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.725
Case management statement
Parties must file a Case Management Statement on mandatory form CM-110 before the CMC under the statewide rule.
Use / limit: Check court-specific calendars and local rules for additional timing requirements.
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.727(19)
Insurance coverage at case management
Parties must address whether insurance coverage issues may affect resolution of the case.
Use / limit: Strong evidence that coverage information matters to efficient case resolution after filing.
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.728
Case management order
The court enters a case-management order and may address matters presented under the case-management rules.
Use / limit: General management authority; not a pre-suit disclosure rule.
CM-110, item 11
Case Management Statement — Insurance
CM-110 asks for the insurance carrier, whether there is a reservation of rights, and whether coverage issues will significantly affect resolution.
Use / limit: Form may contain additional items; cite the current form before quoting exact wording.
Ins. Code § 11580.2(a)
UM coverage baseline
California automobile liability policies generally include UM coverage subject to statutory written deletion/reduction mechanisms and specified exceptions.
Use / limit: Complex statute; quote only the relevant subsection.
Ins. Code § 11580.2(f)
UM discovery before arbitration
The statute supplies Civil Discovery Act mechanisms between the insured and UM insurer after an accident, including specified depositions, interrogatories, and requests for admission, without requiring a previously pending tort action.
Use / limit: Discovery is between insured and insurer and subject to statutory timing/venue rules; it does not itself disclose tortfeasor coverage architecture.
Ins. Code § 11580.2(h)
UM payment without release of other coverage
The statute provides that an insured entitled to UM recovery is not required to release rights under other applicable insurance, and payment may not be delayed solely pending allocation decisions under other liability insurance or bonds.
Use / limit: Apply to the statutory conditions; do not overgeneralize beyond the text.
Ins. Code § 11580.1
Automobile liability policy requirements
Sets statutory requirements and permitted provisions/exclusions for California motor vehicle liability policies.
Use / limit: Do not infer the effect of any particular business-use exclusion without the actual policy and applicable law.
Veh. Code § 16020
Evidence of financial responsibility
Drivers and owners must be able to establish financial responsibility and carry evidence for the vehicle; statutory evidence can be an insurer form, binder, self-insurance proof, or specified electronic/registration information.
Use / limit: Supports the distinction between proof at the scene and a complete post-loss coverage investigation.
Veh. Code § 16056
Financial responsibility minimum limits
For policies/bonds issued or renewed on or after Jan. 1, 2025, the statutory minimum is 30/60/15; higher minimums are scheduled for 2035.
Use / limit: Policy limits can exceed statutory minimums; minimum limits do not establish the full coverage stack.
Ins. Code § 790.03(h)
Unfair claims settlement practices
Defines enumerated unfair claims settlement practices, including misrepresentation, delayed communications/investigation, and failure to explain denials, when committed knowingly with statutory frequency.
Use / limit: Regulatory unfair-practices provision; not a general pre-suit liability-policy disclosure statute.
California DOI Automobile Insurance Guide
Consumer auto insurance guide
Explains California auto liability, financial responsibility, UM/UIM, and proof-of-insurance concepts for consumers.
Use / limit: Educational guidance, not statutory text.
California DOI Commercial Insurance Guide
Commercial auto and umbrella guide
Explains that commercial automobile insurance can address liability arising from autos used in business and that coverage can include owned, non-owned, or hired autos depending on the policy purchased; also discusses commercial umbrella coverage.
Use / limit: Coverage depends on actual policy terms; guide does not prove a policy exists in a particular claim.
Lab. Code § 2775.5
Vehicle ownership and worker classification
Mere ownership of a personal or commercial vehicle used to provide remunerated labor or services does not itself make the worker an independent contractor; if the worker is an employee, reimbursement rules apply.
Use / limit: Use chaptered SB 809 as official source where direct code-section endpoint is unavailable.
Lab. Code § 2802.2
Employee-owned vehicle used in duties
Expressly states that Labor Code § 2802 applies when an employee-owned personal or commercial vehicle is used in discharge of duties; subdivision (a) is declarative of existing law.
Use / limit: Construction-trucking provisions in subsection (b) are more specific; do not extend them to all workers.
SB 809, Stats. 2025, ch. 659
Employee-owned vehicles and construction trucking
Chaptered legislation adding Labor Code §§ 2750.9, 2775.5, and 2802.2 and stating key personal-vehicle propositions as declarative of existing law.
Use / limit: Use final chaptered text rather than earlier bill versions.
California Federal Districts
District-wide local rules are distinguished from judge-specific standing orders. A chambers order is a practice example, not a district-wide rule.
Civil Local Rules, effective May 1, 2026
Northern District current civil local rules
Current N.D. Cal. civil local rules supplement the Federal Rules; no separate district-wide insurance disclosure rule was identified in this review, so Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) remains the baseline subject to case-specific orders.
Use / limit: Absence statement is limited to reviewed district-wide materials; always check assigned-judge standing orders.
Local Rules, effective Feb. 23, 2026
Eastern District current local rules
Current E.D. Cal. local rules operate with the federal Rule 26 baseline; no separate district-wide insurance-disclosure rule was identified in this review.
Use / limit: Check assigned-judge orders and scheduling orders.
Representative scheduling conference order — insurance item
Central District chambers practice example
A representative C.D. Cal. scheduling order directs the Rule 26(f) report to address whether insurance exists, the extent of coverage, and reservation of rights.
Use / limit: Not a district-wide local rule. Label as representative chambers practice only.
Local Rules, effective June 1, 2026
Southern District current local rules
Current S.D. Cal. local rules and chambers rules supplement the federal rules; no separate district-wide insurance-disclosure rule was identified in this review.
Use / limit: Check assigned-judge chambers rules.
California Superior Courts
Local court entries show how insurance or UM/UIM information is operationalized after filing. “No special rule identified” is limited to the materials reviewed and is not a permanent absence finding.
Local civil rule — UM/UIM designation
Sonoma UM/UIM case-management rule
Requires an application/declaration for UM/UIM designation and suspends ordinary case-management rules for 180 days to permit arbitration.
Use / limit: Post-filing local case-management procedure, not pre-suit disclosure.
Local Rule 7.12.09
El Dorado uninsured motorist cases
Plaintiff declaring a UM case must state that UM coverage exists, identify the UM carrier and limits, and state intent to proceed under the UM policy; designation suspends local case-management timing for 180 days.
Use / limit: Demonstrates post-filing operational dependence on insurance information.
Local Rule 3.24
Los Angeles uninsured motorist and case management
Treats UM cases specially for case management, requires identification as an uninsured-motorist case when known, and includes pendency of underinsured claims among case-evaluation factors.
Use / limit: The current URL served a chapter with historical effective-date footer. Recheck before quoting an exact effective date.
Local Rule 3.25
Los Angeles CMC and settlement conference
Requires CMC preparation using CRC 3.727 and CM-110 and requires an authorized insurer representative with coverage or coverage at issue at a settlement conference, absent excuse.
Use / limit: Post-filing settlement practice; not a pre-suit policy-disclosure rule.
Local Rule 316
Orange mandatory settlement conference
Requires affected insurance carriers at mandatory settlement conferences to have representatives with settlement authority and to make good-faith settlement offers.
Use / limit: Settlement-participation rule, not a pre-suit disclosure mandate.
Title 3 Civil Rules, effective July 1, 2026
Alameda civil local rules
Current civil rules identify uninsured-motorist cases and contain general discovery procedures; no separate insurance-disclosure rule was identified in this review.
Use / limit: Absence statement limited to reviewed materials; statewide rules and case-specific orders still apply.
Local Rules of Court
Santa Clara local rules index
Official current local-rule repository. No special insurance-disclosure rule was identified in the reviewed materials; statewide California rules remain the baseline subject to department-specific orders.
Use / limit: Absence statement limited to current review.
California Working-Vehicle Cases
These cases are deliberately balanced. Required-vehicle doctrine can expand scope of employment, but application remains fact-sensitive and ordinary commuting does not automatically become employer business.
Lobo v. Tamco (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 297
Required-vehicle exception — Lobo I
Evidence can create a triable issue under the required-vehicle exception where an employer requires or reasonably relies on an employee making a personal vehicle available for work, even where actual work use is infrequent.
Use / limit: Use published citation; source mirror should be replaced with an official/Official Reports link when stable.
Lobo v. Tamco (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 438
Required-vehicle exception — Lobo II
After trial, substantial evidence supported the jury finding against course-and-scope liability, illustrating that required-vehicle application remains fact-sensitive.
Use / limit: Do not present Lobo I as automatic employer liability; Lobo II supplies the limiting factual context.
Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 886
Required personal vehicle for business travel
Where the employer required the employee to use a personal vehicle for frequent business travel, the required-vehicle exception supported course-and-scope liability during the commute; minor foreseeable deviations did not necessarily terminate it.
Use / limit: Fact-specific respondeat superior holding.
Chang v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 154
Hybrid work does not erase going-and-coming rule
Reaffirms required-vehicle and special-errand doctrines while holding that hybrid work or ordinary commuting alone does not establish course and scope where the employer did not require the vehicle or the travel at issue.
Use / limit: Important limiting authority. Prefer official slip/Official Reports source when final link is normalized.
Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676
Required-vehicle exception analysis
Discusses required-vehicle principles and Lobo, including the possibility that required availability rather than frequent actual business use can matter.
Use / limit: Use for doctrinal synthesis; facts and holding should be stated narrowly.
Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 608
Required-vehicle / incidental-benefit elements
Provides detailed discussion of the required-vehicle/incidental-benefit exception and factual elements relevant to employer benefit and vehicle availability.
Use / limit: Useful for definitions; avoid treating labels as substitutes for factual proof.
Savaikie v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 223
Required-vehicle limiting analysis
Discusses when an incidental benefit or required-vehicle theory applies and distinguishes situations where personal vehicle availability is not truly required for the employment.
Use / limit: Limiting authority.
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Department of Transportation (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 87
Personal trip outside scope
Illustrates limits of respondeat superior where the trip is purely personal and insufficiently connected to employer business, despite the employment context.
Use / limit: Use as counterweight to broad course-and-scope formulations.
Colorado Comparison Authorities
HB 19-1283
Disclosure of Insurance Liability Coverage
Colorado enacted pre-suit auto-liability coverage disclosure, including each known policy of the named insured, excess or umbrella coverage, limits, insured names, and a copy of the policy; the insured has a separate disclosure duty.
Use / limit: Bill page includes enacted summary and source documents.
HB 19-1283 signed act
Legislative declaration and enacted text
Signed act contains legislative findings supporting insurance transparency and enacted statutory provisions.
Use / limit: Use legislative findings separately from operative text.
C.R.C.P. 26(a)(1)(D)
Automatic insurance agreement disclosure in litigation
Colorado litigation rules require, without awaiting a discovery request, disclosure of insurance agreements that may satisfy or reimburse a judgment.
Use / limit: Current rule materials should be rechecked if the Supreme Court adopts new amendments.
Rule Change 2024(03), C.R.C.P. 26(d)
Discovery timing after case management order
Absent authorization by rule, court order, or agreement, a party may not seek discovery from any source before service of the case management order.
Use / limit: Relevant to why compulsory evidence access is litigation-gated in Colorado.
Weatherill v. State Farm, 2026 COA 11
Weatherill — § 10-3-1117
Colorado General Assembly Cases of Note summarizes Weatherill and the Court of Appeals treatment of § 10-3-1117, including the limitation-period issue.
Use / limit: Digest is not substitute for the published opinion; use opinion for exact holdings and record-specific facts.
Bohanan v. Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 2026 COA 6
Policies that provide or may provide coverage / are or may be relevant
The majority held that a policy had to be produced when it was relevant or potentially relevant during the statutory response period and rejected the insurer's argument that its later unilateral coverage determination excused production.
Use / limit: Published Court of Appeals opinion with a dissent. State the record-specific holding narrowly and check later appellate history before relying on it.
Reynolds v. Great Northern Insurance Co., 2023 COA 77
Earlier one-year penalty / accrual analysis
An earlier division treated § 10-3-1117 as a penalty statute subject to a one-year limitation period beginning after the thirty-day disclosure period. Weatherill later declined to follow that reasoning.
Use / limit: Included to explain the appellate conflict and history. Weatherill must be consulted for the later contrary analysis; verify any later Supreme Court review.
2026 Colorado Revised Statutes
Current Colorado statutes repository
Official repository for checking current statutory text, including Title 10.
Use / limit: Link to title-specific PDF when final public library is normalized.