Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10625991
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Day v. Geico Casualty Company
No. 10625991 · Decided July 9, 2025
No. 10625991·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 9, 2025
Citation
No. 10625991
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 9 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSICA DAY, individually and on behalf No. 24-2201
of all others similarly situated, D.C. No.
5:21-cv-02103-BLF
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY; GEICO
INDEMNITY COMPANY; GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 7, 2025**
San Francisco, California
Before: H.A. THOMAS and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District
Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Jessica Day appeals the district court’s order granting GEICO Casualty
Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, and GEICO General Insurance
Company’s (“Defendants”) renewed motion for summary judgment on Day’s
claim that Defendants violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We “review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, and may affirm
on any basis supported by the record.” Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040,
1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
“When specific legislation provides a ‘safe harbor,’ plaintiffs may not use
the general unfair competition law to assault that harbor.” Cel-Tech Commc’ns,
Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 973 P.2d 527, 541 (Cal. 1999). The California
Insurance Code (“Insurance Code”) establishes a “prior approval system,” whereby
insurance companies are required to submit their proposed rates to the
Commissioner of California’s Department of Insurance (“Commissioner”) for
approval before formally changing them. Cal. Ins. Code § 1861.01(c); State Farm
Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lara, 71 Cal. App. 5th 148, 160 (2021). “No act done” or “action
taken” pursuant to the authority conferred by Chapter 9 of the Insurance Code,
which includes the “prior approval system” for insurance rates, “shall constitute a
violation of or grounds for prosecution or civil proceedings under any other law of
this State.” Cal. Ins. Code § 1860.1. Section 1860.1 thus bars a UCL claim that
2 24-2201
challenges an insurance rate previously approved by the Commissioner. See
MacKay v. Superior Court, 188 Cal. App. 4th 1427, 1442–43 (2010); Krumme v.
Mercury Ins. Co., 123 Cal. App. 4th 924, 936 (2004) (stating that the Insurance
Code “displace[s] the UCL” for “activities related to rate setting”) (cleaned up).
Here, Day’s amended complaint challenged the amount of Defendants’
premium refunds in light of the “dramatic reduction” in Defendants’ exposure to
risk, but did not seek to change the overall amount of her coverage. Day sought,
inter alia, “disgorgement” of Defendants’ profit and a return on her premium
refund under the UCL in order to, in essence, lower her premium rate during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Defendants presented undisputed evidence, however, that
the Commissioner previously approved the premium rate applied to Day’s policy,
and Day failed to show that the approved rate plan required Defendants to
retroactively reduce her premium if their exposure to risk decreased. Because the
rate that Defendants charged her had been previously approved by the
Commissioner, Section 1860.1 of the Insurance Code provides a “safe harbor”
against Day’s UCL claim. Cal. Ins. Code §§ 1860.1, 1861.01(c); Cel-Tech
Commc’ns, Inc., 973 P.2d at 541; see Walker v. Allstate Indem. Co., 77 Cal. App.
4th 750, 752–54, 756 (2000) (holding that Section 1860.1 of the Insurance Code
bars suits “seeking damages or disgorgement of allegedly excessive premiums”
and seeking “redetermination of the premium rates”).
3 24-2201
AFFIRMED.
4 24-2201
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 9 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 9 2025 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESSICA DAY, individually and on behalf No.
04THOMAS and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.*** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 9 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Day v. Geico Casualty Company in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 9, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10625991 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.