Can an insurance company admit to cutting off disability benefits to see if insureds would complain?

In Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1978) 21 Cal.3d 910, 922-923, and footnotes 6 and 8, 148 Cal.Rptr. 389, 582 P.2d 980, evidence of an insurance company's policy on settlement of claims, in the form of a claims representative field manual which described claims procedures was used to [166 Cal.App.3d 1034] show the insurance company's intent and that the company engaged in a conscious course of conduct towards plaintiffs.

In Pistorius v. Prudential Insurance Co., supra, 123 Cal.App.3d 541, 556-557, and footnote 10, 176 Cal.Rptr. 660, the court rejected an insurance company's contention that Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a), prohibited admitting evidence of episodes of cutting off disability benefits to see if insureds would complain, consistent with the company's long standing policy. The court held that under subdivision (b) of section 1101, this evidence was admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge and the like, in terminating plaintiff's benefits.