The Supreme Court of California’s recent interpretation of an overlooked statute in Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court of Orange County, 354 P.3d 302 (Cal. 2015) (No. S205889), brings California in step with the majority of other jurisdictions with respect to assignment of insurance claims.  The court overruled Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 62 P. 3d 69 (Cal. 2003), in which it had held that anti-assignment provisions, or consent-to-assignment provisions, in insurance policies are unenforceable only if the assigned claim had been reduced to a money judgment or approved settlement before the assignment.  The court reconsidered its 2003 decision when faced with a challenge to the same consent-to-assignment provision in Fluor because California Insurance Code Section 520 was not raised in the 2003 case.  Section 520 provides that “[a]n agreement not to transfer the claim of the insured against the insurer after a loss has happened, is void if made before the loss,” with some enumerated exceptions.  After an extensive review of the statute’s legislative history and relevant case law, the court held that Section 520 bars an insurer from refusing to honor an insured’s assignment of policy coverage under a third-party liability policy with respect to a loss that predates the assignment regardless of any consent-to-assignment provisions in the policy.  The court further held that “a loss has happened” upon occurrence of the underlying injury or damage that is covered by the insured’s policy and for which the insured may be liable, even before it is reduced to a fixed sum of money.