claim finding that insurance is not a “service”); Estate of Migliaccio v. Midland Nat’l. Life Ins. Co., 436 F.Supp.2d 1095, 1108-09 (C.D.Cal.2006) (dismissing CLRA claim on the ground that annuities, which are defined in the California Insurance Code as part of life insurance, are not “goods” or “services”); Bacon ex rel. Moroney v. Am. Int'l Group, 415 F.Supp.2d 1027, 1035-36 (N.D.Cal.2006) (same); Newland v. Progressive Corp., No. CIV-S-05-01405 DFL PAN, 2006 WL 2536625 at *5 (E.D.Cal. Aug. 31, 2006) (insurance is neither a “good” nor a “service” within the meaning of the CLRA); Bufano v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., No. B166899, 2004 WL 2526422, at *7 (Cal.Ct.App. Nov. 9, 2004) (same); Lynch v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., No. A094846, 2001 WL 1660035 at *7 (Cal.Ct.App. Dec. 28, 2001) (<HOLDING>). As the parties have pointed out, the
holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract holding that under minnesota law an insurance policy or provision not filed with the commissioner of insurance is unenforceable holding that insurance is not a good or service and noting that insurance is a contract by which indemnification is provided for loss arising from a contingent or unknown event holding that additional free title insurance provided a benefit to class members regardless of whether they made a claim on that insurance holding that new yorks public policy does not bar insurance coverage for disparate impact employment discrimination but noting that the state of new york insurance department has stated that it is against public policy to provide insurance coverage for intentional acts of discrimination