(Title Ins. Co. v. State Bd. ofEqualization, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 726.) The underwriting agreement was not a contract of insurance because it did not “distribute the risk ofliability for claims among similarly situated persons” as required under Insurance Code section 22. (Title Ins. Co.v. State Bd. ofEqualization, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 726.) “Under the contract, the underwritten title company agrees to indemnify the insurer for a portion 22 of its liability.

By statute, an insurance policy is a contract in which the insurer agrees to indemnify the insured “against loss, damage or liability from a contingent or unknown event.” California Insurance Code § 22. Therefore, to decide the parties’ rights and obligations, the court must look to the language of the policy.

Kia’s warranty is not an insurance policy: it “guarantees against a defect in the product itself” rather than “indemnif[ying] against outside perils” like rodents.2 Tokuhisa v. Cutter Mgmt. Co., 223 P.3d 246, 255 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009) (distinguishing between warranties and insurance policies); see also Cal. Ins. Code § 22 (defining insurance as “a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another against loss, damage, or liability arising from a contingent or unknown event” (emphasis added)). This distinction exists for good reason: Kia has no way to predict or control how owners or lessees of its vehicles will use their vehicles or the natural phenomena to which the vehicles are exposed.

The Legislature has defined insurance as “a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another against loss, damage, or liability arising from a contingent or unknown event.” (Cal. Ins. Code, § 22.) Thus, addition to the DOI’s response to Deans & Homer’s requests for approval of its program, Deans & Homeralso was required to obtain the DOI’s authorization for issuance of the Storage Liability Policy Deans & Homer’s sold to A-1. (See Cal. Ins. Code §1861.05.)

The court in Black also relied on the fact that a self-funded health care plan, like the one at issue here, is not an insurer within the meaning of “insurance” under California law, which defines “insurance” as “a contract whereby one undertakes to indemnify another against loss, damage, or liability arising from a contingent or unknown event.” Case 2:16-cv-02946-HRH Document 23 Filed 01/23/17 Page 7 of 29 L A W O F F IC E S T H E C A V A N A G H L A W F IR M , P .A . 1 8 5 0 N O R T H C E N T R A L A V E N U E , S U IT E 2 4 0 0 P H O E N IX , A R IZ O N A 8 5 0 0 4 -4 5 2 7 (6 0 2 ) 3 2 2 -4 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 8171999_1 8 Black, 2015 WL 2058809, at *3 (citing Cal. Ins. Code §§ 22, 23 and Richardson v. Gab Business Servs., Inc., 161 Cal.App.3d 519, 523 (1984), which held that the “allegation of self-insurance . . . is repugnant to the concept of insurance which fundamentally involves the shifting to a third party, by contract.”). Importantly, Arizona’s definition of “insurance” is identical to that of California’s.