California Insurance Code § 10110.6 has long been a battleground in ERISA litigation. The statute voids provisions that grant an insurer or administrator discretionary authority to interpret plan terms or decide eligibility for benefits. While courts have applied § 10110.6 routinely to life and disability insurance, federal district courts have split on whether it also reaches health insurance plans. In Torres v. Emsurgcare (unpublished Ninth Cir. 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals came down on the side that health insurance is covered—adding weight to the growing view that § 10110.6 is not limited to life and disability. This matters because once the discretionary clause is void, courts review denials de novo, not under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.

The plaintiff, covered under a group health plan, challenged the denial of benefits and argued that because the plan was delivered in California and contained a discretionary clause, the clause was void under § 10110.6 and the court should apply de novo review. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company (“United”) countered that § 10110.6 was limited to life and disability insurance. The court rejected this narrow reading, holding that the statute’s broad language and decisions by the California Courts of Appeal support its application to all insured health policies issued or delivered in California.

The Court held that California’s intermediate appellate courts have repeatedly observed that health insurance is a form of disability insurance for purposes of the California Insurance Code. See, e.g., Ticconi v. Blue Shield of Cal. Life & Health Ins. Co., 160 Cal.App. 4th 528, 539 n.7 (2008), petition for review denied, 2008 Cal. LEXIS 7013 (June 11, 2008) (“[H]ealth insurance … is a type of disability insurance.”); Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co., 181 Cal.App.4th 60, 79 n.4 (2010) (“[H]ealth insurance is a type of disability insurance.”); Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct., 192 Cal.App.4th 727, 733 (2011) (“Health insurance policies are considered a form of disability insurance.”).

Although Torres departs from decisions like Bain v. United Healthcare, 2016 WL 4529495, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2016) which declined to apply § 10110.6 to health policies, it reinforces a growing body of authority supporting a broader interpretation of the statute in line with its plain language and purpose. For ERISA litigants in California, particularly those challenging denials under insured health plans, Torres provides strong support for invoking § 10110.6 to seek de novo review—often a critical factor in the outcome of benefit disputes.