Administrative Regulations, Regulatory, and Transactional Works
Mr. Palmer served as the General Counsel (or lead attorney) for the California Department of Insurance. Mr. Palmer re-worked the Unfair Claims Regulations with senior staff counsel from the California Department of Insurance to become the “Fair Claims Regulations.” The Fair Claims Regulations (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 10, § 2695.1 (1995)), guide and control the timing, payment, and grievance resolution of property casualty insurance claims in the State of California. California is the largest insurance market in the United States of America and controls 20-25% of the insurance business of this country. Mr. Palmer authored a law review article, which was published and may be found at: William W. Palmer, “Proposed Unfair Claims Regulations” (1996) 36 Santa Clara Law Review 687, which explains the operation of the Fair Claims Regulations.
Mr. Palmer has significant transactional experience and has written business plans, including a business plan that was accepted by the Fortune One Company, and has written a variety of stock purchase and redemption agreements, buy-sell agreements, creation of various business entities, mergers and acquisitions, and handled all manner of large and small business work and government filings.
Mr. Palmer has significant private practice insurance coverage experience and drafted the manuscript risk pool (insurance) coverage for roughly 180 of California’s schools, including Kindergarten through Ninth grades, as well as community Colleges. Mr. Palmer has written over 300 insurance coverage analyses and opinions in plaintiff and defense cases. He is routinely called to testify on behalf and assist the State and Federal Governments on complex insurance cases. See, for example, Mr. Palmer’s published decision in Downey Venture, et. al. v. LMI Ins. Co. (1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 478 (Held Public policy prevented appellee insurance company from being liable for January 6, 2017 indemnification on a malicious prosecution claim incurred by appellants, but public policy did not prevent appellee’s duty defend the claim).