CACI Jury Instructions for Insurance Litigation in California

When an insurance dispute goes to trial in California, the judge does not simply tell the jury to “figure it out.” Instead, the judge reads a specific set of instructions that tell the jury what the law is, what elements the plaintiff must prove, what defenses are available, and how to evaluate the evidence. These instructions are called CACI — California Civil Jury Instructions. They are the bridge between the statutes, the case law, and the people who actually decide the case.

For policyholders disputing their insurance company’s handling of a claim, the CACI Series 2300 instructions are the standard framework. They define what it means to breach a policy, what constitutes bad faith, how causation works when covered and excluded perils combine, and what damages a jury can award. Understanding these instructions is not just useful for attorneys preparing for trial — it is useful for anyone who wants to understand what the law actually requires of an insurance company.

What Are CACI Jury Instructions?

CACI stands for California Civil Jury Instructions. They are the officially approved set of instructions that California judges give to juries in civil cases. The Judicial Council of California publishes and periodically updates them. Before CACI was adopted in 2003, California used an older set called BAJI (Book of Approved Jury Instructions). CACI replaced BAJI because the older instructions were often written in dense legalese that confused jurors. CACI instructions are written in plain English and are designed to be understood by non-lawyers.

Each CACI instruction addresses a specific legal issue. In the insurance context, the Series 2300covers “Insurance Litigation” and includes instructions numbered from CACI 2300 through CACI 2361, plus verdict forms VF-2300 through VF-2304. These instructions cover:

• Breach of the contractual duty to pay a covered claim (CACI 2300)
• Insurance binders and temporary coverage (CACI 2301–2302)
• Policy exclusions and the burden of proof (CACI 2303–2304)
• Lost or destroyed policies (CACI 2305)
• Concurrent causation and the predominant cause of loss (CACI 2306)
• Insurance agency disputes (CACI 2307)
• Misrepresentation in insurance applications (CACI 2308)
• Fraudulent claims and policy termination (CACI 2309)
• Late notice, cooperation, and voluntary payment defenses (CACI 2320–2322)
• The implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing (CACI 2330)
• Bad faith — failure to pay, failure to investigate, failure to inform (CACI 2331–2333)
• Third-party bad faith — refusal to settle and failure to defend (CACI 2334–2336)
• Factors for evaluating insurer conduct (CACI 2337)
• Bad faith damages (CACI 2350)
• Judgment creditor actions and negligent failure to obtain coverage (CACI 2360–2361)

How Jury Instructions Relate to Case Law

Jury instructions do not exist in a vacuum. Every CACI instruction is built on top of existing statutes and case law. Each instruction includes a “Sources and Authority” section that cites the statutes, appellate decisions, and Supreme Court opinions on which it is based. In this way, jury instructions are a distillationof the law — they take the holdings from dozens of cases and condense them into a single, readable statement that a jury can apply.

For example, CACI 2331 — the instruction for bad faith failure or delay in payment — is built on the landmark holding in Gruenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co.(1973) 9 Cal.3d 566, which established that an insurer who unreasonably withholds payment is “subject to liability in tort.” The instruction also draws on Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.(1979) 24 Cal.3d 809, which held that an insurer must give “at least as much consideration to the [insured’s] interests as it does to its own.”

But there are important differences between jury instructions and case law:

• Case law creates the rules. When the California Supreme Court decides a case, it establishes a binding legal principle. The holding in Gruenberg or Sabella v. Wisler (1963) 59 Cal.2d 21 is the law itself.
• Jury instructions explain the rules to jurors. They translate judicial holdings into plain-English elements that a jury can follow. The instruction tells the jury what to decide, while the case law tells the judge why the instruction is correct.
• Case law is binding; jury instructions are not (technically). An appellate court is bound by Supreme Court precedent. A jury instruction approved by the Judicial Council carries significant weight, but it is not itself a source of law. Courts can modify or refuse to give a particular CACI instruction if the facts of the case warrant it.
• Jury instructions simplify; case law nuances. A CACI instruction states a clean, bright-line rule. The underlying cases often contain extensive discussion of exceptions, factual variations, and policy rationales that the instruction does not reproduce.

The But-For Causation Test and Efficient Proximate Cause (CACI 2306)

One of the most important — and most frequently litigated — issues in property insurance claims is causation. When a loss involves a combination of covered and excluded perils, who wins? The answer depends on a causation framework that traces back to two Insurance Code provisions and a critical line of case law.

Insurance Code Sections 530 and 532: The Statutory Foundation

Insurance Code § 530provides the general rule: an insurer is liable for a loss “of which a peril insured against was the proximate cause, although a peril not contemplated by the contract may have been a remote cause of the loss.” In other words, if the covered peril was the proximate cause, the loss is covered — even if something else also played a role.

Insurance Code § 532 provides the flip side — the but-for causation rule for excluded perils: if a peril is specifically excepted from coverage, the insurer is not liable for a loss caused by that peril. This is sometimes called the “but-for” test because the question becomes: but for the excluded peril, would the loss have occurred?If the excluded peril is the but-for cause — the cause without which the loss would not have happened — then the exclusion may bar coverage.

The tension between these two statutes is exactly what CACI 2306 resolves.

CACI 2306: The Predominant Cause Test

CACI 2306 instructs the jury that when a loss is caused by a combination of covered and excluded risks, the loss is covered only if the most important or predominant cause is a covered risk. This is the efficient proximate cause doctrine, established by the California Supreme Court in Sabella v. Wisler (1963) 59 Cal.2d 21 and refined in Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 395.

The efficient proximate cause is “the one that sets others in motion” (Sabella) — or more precisely, the predominating cause (Garvey). The California Supreme Court in Garveydeliberately moved away from the “moving cause” language because it could be “misconstrued to deny coverage erroneously, particularly when it is understood literally to mean the ‘triggering’ cause.”

Critically, insurers are prohibited from contracting around this doctrine. In Vardanyan v. AMCO Ins. Co.(2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 779, the court held that a policy provision attempting to deny coverage whenever any unlisted peril contributed to a loss “in any way and to any degree” was “an unenforceable attempt to contract around the efficient proximate cause doctrine.” The court confirmed that CACI 2306 was the correct instruction for the jury.

Real-World Example: Wildfire Followed by Mudslide

This is not theoretical. Consider a wildfire that strips hillside vegetation, followed by rain that triggers a mudslide into a home. The homeowner’s policy covers fire but excludes earth movement. The insurer argues the earth movement exclusion bars coverage. But under the efficient proximate cause doctrine, the relevant question is: what was the predominant cause of the loss?The fire — which destroyed the vegetation and destabilized the hillside — was the force that set the other events in motion. The mudslide was a consequence. Fire is the predominant cause, and the loss is covered.

This framework matters any time a loss involves multiple causes. Wind (covered) followed by rain intrusion through a damaged roof (water damage — possibly excluded). A pipe burst (covered) that over time leads to mold growth (subject to a mold sub-limit or exclusion). Fire sprinkler discharge (covered) that leads to secondary contamination. In each scenario, CACI 2306 tells the jury to identify the predominant cause and decide coverage based on that.

Breach of Contract: CACI 2300

The most straightforward insurance claim is a breach of the contractual duty to pay. CACI 2300 lays out three elements that the policyholder must prove:

1. The plaintiff suffered a loss covered under the insurance policy;
2. The defendant was notified of the loss; and
3. The amount of the covered loss that the defendant failed to pay.

That is it. No need to prove bad faith. No need to prove the insurer was unreasonable. If the loss was covered, the insurer was notified, and it did not pay what it owed, the insurer is liable for breach of contract. The simplicity of this instruction is important because it reminds policyholders that before bad faith, before emotional distress, before punitive damages, the foundational claim is always: you had a policy, you had a covered loss, and you were not paid.

Policy Exclusions and the Burden of Proof: CACI 2303–2304

The burden-shifting framework in policy exclusion disputes is one of the most important things a policyholder can understand. CACI 2303 and 2304, together with the case law from Aydin Corp. v. First State Insurance Co. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1183, establish a three-step process:

1. The insured proves basic coverage. The policyholder must show that the occurrence falls within the basic scope of coverage.
2. The insurer proves the exclusion applies. Once basic coverage is established, the burden shifts to the insurer to prove that a specific exclusion bars coverage (CACI 2303).
3. The insured proves an exception to the exclusion. If the insurer establishes that an exclusion applies, the burden shifts back to the insured to prove that an exception to the exclusion reinstates coverage (CACI 2304).

This burden-shifting framework is especially relevant in disputes over wear and tear, coverage disputes, and claims where the insurer invokes an exclusion without adequately investigating whether the exclusion actually applies. For all-risk homeowner policies, the insurer — not the policyholder — bears the burden of proving an exclusion applies. This is a fundamentally pro-policyholder structure.

Bad Faith: What the Jury Is Actually Told (CACI 2330–2337)

The CACI instructions on bad faith are some of the most powerful tools in insurance litigation. They translate the broad concept of bad faith into specific, provable elements.

CACI 2330: What “Good Faith” Means

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is explained in CACI 2330. It tells the jury that the insurer must not do anything to “unfairly interfere with the [insured’s] right to receive the benefits of the contract.” This instruction establishes the baseline: the insurer has a duty that goes beyond merely complying with the literal terms of the policy. It must deal fairly.

CACI 2331: Bad Faith Failure or Delay in Payment

This is the instruction that applies to most first-party insurance disputes. The policyholder must prove five elements:

1. The plaintiff suffered a loss covered under the policy;
2. The defendant was notified of the loss;
3. The defendant unreasonably failed to pay or delayed payment;
4. The plaintiff was harmed; and
5. The defendant’s failure or delay was a substantial factor in causing the harm.

The word “unreasonably” is doing critical work in element three. The insurer does not have to be perfect, but it must have a reasonable basis for its actions. If the insurer delays payment without a legitimate reason, that element is satisfied.

CACI 2332: Bad Faith Failure to Investigate

CACI 2332 addresses one of the most common forms of bad faith: the failure to conduct a proper investigation. The instruction tells the jury that the insurer must conduct a “full, fair, prompt, and thorough investigation of all of the bases of the plaintiff’s claim.” Note the word “all.”A sloppy, one-sided investigation designed to support a denial — or an investigation that relies entirely on biased experts hired by the carrier — fails this standard.

The case law underlying this instruction is powerful. In Egan, the California Supreme Court held that an insurer “cannot reasonably and in good faith deny payments to its insured without fully investigating the grounds for its denial.” In Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co.(2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, the Court held that what the insurer “could not do, consistent with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, was ignore [the doctor’s] conclusions without any attempt at adequate investigation, and reach contrary conclusions lacking any discernable medical foundation.”

CACI 2333: Bad Faith Failure to Inform Insured of Rights

This instruction is particularly important for policyholders who do not have professional representation. CACI 2333 establishes that the insurer has an affirmative duty to inform the insured of their rights and obligations under the policy. The instruction derives from Davis v. Blue Cross of Northern California(1979) 25 Cal.3d 418, which held that when “the insured does not have legal training and whose lack of knowledge may potentially result in a loss of benefits or a forfeiture of rights, an insurer [is] required to bring to the insured’s attention relevant information.”

If a policyholder had the right to invoke appraisal and the insurer never told them, that is a failure under CACI 2333. If the insurer denied a claim without explaining the policyholder’s right to file a CDI complaint or to challenge the denial through dispute resolution, that is a failure under CACI 2333.

CACI 2337: Factors for Evaluating the Insurer’s Conduct

This instruction provides the jury with a detailed checklist of conduct that may constitute bad faith. It mirrors the prohibited practices listed in Insurance Code § 790.03 and the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations. Among the factors the jury may consider:

• Misrepresenting relevant facts or policy provisions to the insured
• Failing to acknowledge or act promptly on communications about the claim
• Failing to adopt reasonable standards for prompt investigation and processing
• Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based on all available information
• Not attempting in good faith to settle when liability is reasonably clear
• Compelling the insured to file a lawsuit to recover amounts due under the policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered
• Requiring unnecessary or duplicative documentation to delay the claim
• Delaying resolution of one coverage to influence settlements under other coverages

This instruction is devastating in front of a jury because it puts concrete, recognizable conduct on the table. When the jury hears that the insurer demanded the same information in three different forms, or that it sat on a claim for months without communicating, these factors give the jury a framework to call that behavior what it is: bad faith.

Damages for Bad Faith: CACI 2350

One of the most significant differences between a breach of contract claim and a bad faith claim is the scope of damages. CACI 2350 instructs the jury that damages for bad faith must include “all harm that was caused by the defendant, even if the particular harm could not have been anticipated.”

This is a much broader standard than breach of contract damages. Under CACI 2350, a jury can award:

• The full policy benefits that should have been paid
• Attorney’s fees the insured incurred to recover those benefits (under Brandt v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal.3d 813)
• Emotional distress damagescaused by the insurer’s bad faith conduct
• Consequential damages— including financial harm caused by the delay or denial
• Punitive damagesin egregious cases, if the insurer’s conduct was oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious (see Civil Code § 3294)

For elderly or dependent adult policyholders, additional enhanced remedies may be available under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, including automatic attorney’s fees and survival actions.

Practical Examples: How CACI Instructions Apply to Real Insurance Disputes

Example 1: The Lowball Offer on a Fire Claim

A homeowner’s property is destroyed in a wildfire. The insurance company sends an adjuster who prepares a scope of loss that misses half the damage. The insurer makes a lowball settlement offer that is 40% below the actual cost to rebuild. The policyholder hires a Public Adjuster and an attorney and eventually sues.

At trial, the jury receives CACI 2300 (breach of contract — the insurer failed to pay the full amount of the covered loss), CACI 2331 (bad faith failure to pay), CACI 2332 (bad faith failure to investigate — the insurer’s own adjuster missed half the damage), and CACI 2337 (factors including offering substantially less than the amount ultimately recovered). Under CACI 2350, the jury can award the unpaid benefits, emotional distress, attorney’s fees, and potentially punitive damages.

Example 2: Water Damage and Concurrent Causation

A pipe bursts in a wall and floods the home. The insurer pays for the water damage but denies coverage for resulting mold growth, claiming the mold exclusion applies. The policyholder argues the pipe burst was the predominant cause, and the mold is an ensuing consequence. At trial, the jury receives CACI 2306 and is asked: what was the most important or predominant cause of the loss? If the jury finds the pipe burst was the predominant cause, the insurer cannot use the mold exclusion to deny the entire loss.

Example 3: The Insurer Never Told You About Appraisal

A policyholder and their insurer disagree on the amount of a roof damage claim. The policy contains an appraisal clause that would allow the dispute to be resolved by independent appraisers, but the insurer never mentions it. The policyholder, unaware of this option, accepts a reduced payment. Under CACI 2333, the insurer had a duty to inform the policyholder of their rights under the policy. The failure to disclose the appraisal option is a separate basis for a bad faith claim.

Example 4: The Biased Engineer Report

An insurer sends a forensic engineer to inspect storm damage to a roof. The engineer — who does 90% of their work for insurance companies — writes a report attributing all damage to pre-existing wear and tear. The insurer relies solely on this report to deny the claim without conducting any independent investigation. Under CACI 2332, the insurer failed to conduct a “full, fair, prompt, and thorough investigation of allof the bases of the claim.” The biased engineer report, standing alone, does not satisfy the insurer’s duty.

The Verdict Forms: How Juries Actually Decide

The CACI series also includes model verdict forms (VF-2300 through VF-2304) that walk the jury through the elements in a step-by-step, yes-or-no format. For example, VF-2301 (bad faith failure to pay) asks:

1. Did the plaintiff suffer a loss covered under the policy? (Yes/No)
2. If yes: Was the defendant notified? (Yes/No)
3. If yes: Did the defendant fail to pay or delay payment? (Yes/No)
4. If yes: Was the failure or delay unreasonable? (Yes/No)
5. If yes: Was the plaintiff harmed? (Yes/No)
6. If yes: Was the failure or delay a substantial factor in causing the harm? (Yes/No)
7. If yes: What are the plaintiff’s damages? ($____)

At each step, if the jury answers “no,” they stop and return a verdict for the insurer. If they answer “yes” to every element, they reach the damages question. This structure means that every insurance bad faith case comes down to concrete, answerable questions — and every element is an opportunity for the policyholder to present evidence of insurer misconduct.

What This Means for Policyholders

You do not need to be a lawyer to benefit from understanding jury instructions. The CACI Series 2300 instructions describe, in plain English, what a jury will be asked to decide if an insurance dispute goes to trial. Sharing these references with your attorney can help you have more informed conversations about your claim:

• Document everything. CACI 2331 requires proof that the insurer unreasonably failed to pay or delayed payment. Your attorney may advise you to maintain a paper trail of every communication, every missed deadline, and every unfulfilled promise. See our guide on writing effective claim letters.
• Biased investigations matter.CACI 2332 requires a “full, fair, prompt, and thorough investigation of allof the bases.” If the insurer relied on a single carrier-friendly engineer report and ignored contradictory evidence, discuss with your attorney whether the investigation met this standard.
• The burden of proof may favor you. For all-risk policies, the insurer must prove the exclusion applies (CACI 2303). The policyholder does not have to prove the exclusion does not apply. If the insurer denies a claim based on an exclusion, your attorney may consider whether the insurer has actually met that burden.
• Concurrent causation is nuanced. If a loss involved both covered and excluded perils, the question under CACI 2306 is not whether the excluded peril played a role, but whether it was the predominant cause. This is an area where legal counsel can make a significant difference.
• Consider professional help early.If you see the elements of bad faith forming — unreasonable delay, sloppy investigation, lowball offers — it may be time to consult a Public Adjuster or insurance attorney.

Additional Resources

The full text of CACI jury instructions is publicly available. These are authoritative sources for anyone who wants to read the actual instructions or the case law behind them:

• California Courts — CACI Jury Instructions (Official) — The Judicial Council of California’s official page for the full text of all CACI instructions, including Series 2300.
• Insurance Code § 530 — Proximate Cause — The statute establishing that the insurer is liable when a covered peril is the proximate cause.
• Insurance Code § 532 — Excluded Peril Causation — The statute addressing but-for causation when a loss is caused by an excluded peril.
• Cornell Law Institute — Proximate Cause — General legal background on causation standards in civil law.
• California Department of Insurance — For filing complaints and understanding the regulatory standards that parallel CACI 2337.