United Policyholders Amicus Project
Back To Amicus Project Home
AAA DisposalSystems, Inc. and BFI Waste v. Aetna, (2004)
Supreme Court of Illinois
Issue: Late notice; all sums; joint and several; allocation.
A-One Oil Company v. The Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, (1998)
No. 95-4397 Court of Appeals, State of New York
Issue: Insurance company should not be able to avoid its duty to
defend and indemnify based on a pollution exclusion when damage sustained was
result of replacement of an old heater in a private residence. Exclusion, as
applied does not meet reasonable expectations of insured.
Advance Watch Company, LTD v. Kemper National Insurance Company, (1996)
No. 95-1367/1387 Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, Michigan
Issue: Trademark infringement claims should be covered under
standard form advertising injury policy.
Aerojet-General Corporation v. Transport Indemnity Insurance Company, (1997)
17 California 4th 38
Issue: Insurance companies should not be allowed to profit from
inconsistent coverage positions. / Allocation.
Aetna Health, Inc. v. Juan Davila, (2004)
Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 02-1845 & 03-83
Issue: ERISA not intended to preempt state laws regulating insurance
Outcome: U.S.Supreme Court holds, once again, that ERISA preempts everything.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (209K pdf)
2005 Law Journal Commentary (128K pdf)
AICCO, Inc. v. INA Financial Corporation, (2001)
No. 308869 Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, Division 3, California
Issue: An insurance company cannot avoid coverage in a class
policies simply restructuring itself and assigning its liabilities to another
company without first obtaining the consent of its policyholders.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (7.4MB pdf)
Aircraft Holdings, L.L.C. vs. XL Specialty Insurance Company, (2006)
Case No. SC06-1303, Florida Supreme Court
Issue: In a first-party action brought pursuant to Section 624.155, the
attorney-client privilege does not bar production of attorney-client
communications generated during the claim investigation and underlying coverage
action which are relevant to the issue of whether the company evaluated the
claim in good faith. Attorney-client privilege cannot act as a shield for
insurer's bad faith conduct.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (228K pdf)
AllAmerica Financial Corporation, SMA Financial Corporation at al., (2007)
Supreme Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Case No. SJC-09834.
Issue: The Court requested submission of an amicus curiae
brief on the issue of “whether an excess insurer,
having provided a follow-form excess insurance policy, is bound by the primary
insurer's determination of the primary policy's applicability in the settlement
of a class action suit that exhausted the primary policy. The simple answer is
"YES." Because Lloyd's policy expressly agreed to “subject” itself to the
primary's insurer's control of the defense and settlement, it is bound by all
good faith determinations made in the exercise of that control, including all
decisions leading to the exhaustion of the primary limits.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.2 MB pdf)
Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Insurance Company & Paul Cobb v. Joanquin Ruiz
and Paulina Ruiz, (2001)
SC-01-893 Supreme Court of Florida
Issue: Policyholder's should be able to obtain copies of insurer's claim files in
litigation involving coverage dispute. /duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (96K pdf)
Allstate v. Pincheira, (2002)
See Pincheira below.
Issue: Court should allow discovery of internal documents pertaining to manner of
handling claims (claims Core Process Redesign).
American Games, Inc. v. Trade Products, Inc.
No. 97-35275 Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, United States
American Home Assurance Company v. International Insurance Co & National Casualty Co., (1997)
No. 12679/91,20741/90 Court of Appeals, State of New York
Issue: late notice—notice prejudice rule.
American Insurance Assn. v. Garamendi, (2004)
California Court of Appeals, 3rd Appellate District, No. 045000
Issue: Attempt to stop insurer's from engaging in the practice know as "Use it and
lose it."
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (116K pdf)
Read the Court's opinion (72K doc)
Read press statement by Commissioner Garamendi
Read article in the SF Chronicle
Read article in the NY Times (48K pdf)
Download Amicus Letter Brief of United Policyholders (320K pdf)
American Names Association Inc. v. New York State Department of Insurance, (2002)
Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Issue: The need for a foreign insurer (Lloyds) to be licensed in New York State.
Anderson, Thomas v. Allstate Insurance Company, (2001)
No. 01-15145 U.S.
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Issue: Insurer cannot use toxic mold protection act to shield
itself from bad faith liability in a claim regarding remediation of mold.
/thorough investigation/legal treatises.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (5.2MB pdf)
Anthoine et al v. Lord, Bissell & Brook et al., (2001)
No. 102420/99 Supreme Court of New York
Issue: plaintiffs should not be barred from suing lawyers for
serious unlawful conduct while representing them even though at the time the
plaintiffs did not know they were being represented. Duty of Lloyd's law firm;
Statute of Limitations; tolling; ethical and fiduciary duty.
Asten Johnson Inc., v. Columbia Casualty Co. and Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies, (2008)
Case No. 07-2305, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Issue: Asbestos exclusion. Policyholders should have the right to select the policies under which they seek coverage, without fear of prejudice to any Laches or Course of Performance Argument. Courts should not hamstring a policyholder's efforts to obtain evidence of custom and usage in the insurance industry, particularly where evidence regarding trade usage provides the basis for interpreting the language in the policy. It is essential that policyholders have the opportunity to take broad discovery on matters relating to custom and usage in the insurance industry. Insurance companies should not be allowed to adopt an interpretation that renders a policy provision meaningless.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (5.4MB pdf)
Avery, Michael E. et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (2005)
No. 97-L-114 Supreme Court of Illinois
Issue: Insurance Company should not be able to use after market parts when policy calls
for restoring vehicle to pre-loss condition; unfair practices;
McCarran-Ferguson Act.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.2MB pdf)
Julian Banerji v. John Hancock Life Insurance and Unum Provident, (2004)
Mass Supreme Court
Issue: Unwritten exclusions; breach of contract; insurance
nullification.
Ballard v. Farmers Insurance Group, (2002)
Texas Court of Appeals
Issue: Insurance nullification by litigation; bad faith.
Barber, James v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, (2004)
No. 03-4363, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Issue: ERISA should not preempt state insurance laws.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.5MB pdf)
Basich v. Allstate Ins. Co. et al., (2001)
California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, Division 3, Case No. B132634, LASC Case No. BC 167194
Issue: Statue of Limitations-equitable estoppel.
Baugh Construction Company v. Granite State Insurance Company, (1997)
No. C023071 Court of Appeals, 3rd Appellate District, California
Issue: Under New Jersey law, the obligation of good faith and fair dealing extends to the assertion, settlement and litigation of contract claims
Belt Painting v. TIG, (2003)
No. 18328100, State of New York
Issue: New York State law should limit the application of ISO's standard-form
pollution exclusions to industrial pollution of the environment and it should
not be applied to avoid liability for routine premise/operations claims.
Benoy Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, (1996)
No. 96-0536 Appellate Court, 1st District, 1st Division, Illinois
Issue: Loss Mitigation; Indemnity v. Defense; PRP letters as
suits
Berthelot etal. v. Boh Brothers Construction Co. L.L.C. et al., (2007)
Class Action, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Civil Action No. 05-4182.
This document relates to: 05-6323 "K" (2) Vanderbrook.
Issue: The anti-concurrent causation language
upon which Defendants rely has already been deemed ambiguous as a matter of law
by another Federal Court addressing similar arguments raised by Defendants. Tuepker
v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2006 WL 1442489 (S. D. Miss.). Furthermore,
Defendants' position with regard to this language is in complete derogation of
the "efficient proximate cause" doctrine, which has been adopted by the
Louisiana Supreme Court and provides that a policyholder is entitled to
coverage if a covered peril was the proximate or efficient cause of the loss or
damage, notwithstanding that other
excluded or non-covered perils contributed to the damage.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.3MB pdf)
Bi-Economy Market, Inc., v. Harleysville Insurance Co. Of New York, (2007)
Case No. CA 06-00847, Court
of Appeals, New York State.
Issue: The policyholder sought consequential damages
for the loss of its business as a result of the insurance company's refusal to
make timely payment. The trial court refused to award
consequential damages. United Policyholders argued that such damages are
routinely awarded in breach of contract cases, including cases involving breach
of an insurance policy, and that under the venerable Hadley v.
Baxendale decision, such damages were foreseeable given the nature of
the policy at issue. Moreover, even though the consequential loss
exclusion barred coverage for certain losses, it did not bar a court
from imposing the remedy of consequential damages.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.5MB pdf)
Download Brief in opposition to insurance company amici (7.2MB pdf)
Read the Court’s Decision (36K pdf)
Birth Center v. St Paul Companies, Inc., (2000)
No. 25, 26, 27 & 28, Supreme Court, Pennsylvania
Issue: Payment of an excess verdict does not extinguish the
insurer's bad faith refusal to settle under Pennsylvania law.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (6.8MB pdf)
Bischel v. Fire Insurance Exchange, (1992)
Issue: Coverage for code upgrades.
Blue Ridge v. Jacobsen, (2001)
25 Cal. 4th 489
Issue: Letter Brief requesting rehearing—scope of duty to
defend.
Board of Directors Metro Wastewater v. Nat'l Union Fire, (2004)
Appellate Court-Illinois
Issue: Can insurer deny claim based on late notice without showing
of prejudice.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1MB pdf)
Board of Education of Township High School District No. 211 v. International Ins. Co., (1996)
No. 98-0084, Appellate Court of Illinois, 1st Judicial District, Third Division
Issue: All Risk Policies.
Boston Gas v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, et. Al., (2007)
United States Court of Appeals, First
District, Mass. Case No. 07-1452
Issue: Coverage for continuous injury when multiple policies cover the loss. "all
sums" versus allocation of loss. The Court should adopt the position that
joint and several liability should be imposed against insurance companies for
damages arising from an ongoing injury. The only way the policyholder can
enjoy the security it purchased with each policy is if the policyholder can collect
the full amount of indemnity that is due from any insurer whose coverage is
triggered.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.1MB pdf)
Buell Industries, Inc. V. Greater Mutual New York Insurance Co., (2001)
No. SC 16464 Supreme Court, Connecticut
Issue: Under the Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, (CERCLA) payments for environmental remediation or "clean up"
costs constitutes "damages" and should be compensable under liability insurance
policies.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3.6MB pdf)
Buss v. Superior Court State of California, County of Los Angeles, (1997)
No. S052844
Supreme Court, California
Issue: Under California law an insurer has a duty to defend the
entire case as long as there is a potential for coverage of even one claim.
Insurer can request an allocation of costs after defense is complete.
Allocation—covered vs. uncovered.
California Auto Insurance Company v. Hogan, (2004)
S120950, Supreme Court of California
Issue: California motor vehicle insurance provides coverage for
injuries bearing almost any causal relationship to the vehicle.
California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. v. California Department of Managed Care et al., (2002)
No. C041091 3rd District Court of Appeal, California
Issue: Writ of Mandate requiring California Dept. of Managed Health Care to obey and
enforce Health & Safety Code section 137.30(h) (Knox-Keene Act). Private
right of enforcement. Policyholders should be able to obtain documents from
the CDMHC in connection with their appeal of an HMO denial to ensure that
policyholder's grievances are thoroughly reviewed on a complete factual record
and provide a reasoned explanation for the final disposition of policyholders'
grievances.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3.6MB pdf)
California Medical Association v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California, (2002)
No. S103631 Supreme Court, California
Issue: Health Plans play the same function as health insurers and
should be held to the same standards. Policyholders reasonably expect adequate
payment by health plans for their healthcare. Because inadequate payment to
physicians could compromise the quality of healthcare, underfunding
intermediaries and not paying physicians violates the state's unfair
competition laws.
Download Amicus Letter Brief of United Policyholders (2.1MB pdf)
Callas Enterprises v. The Travelers Indemnity Company of America, (1999)
No. 98-3802 Court of Appeals, 8th District, United States
Issue: Insurers are obligated to pay defense costs for tortuous
allegations in a complaint where distinct claims for an intellectual property
tort is alleged along with a breach of contract claim.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (188K pdf)
Campbell v. State Farm, (2003) (cf. UP Newsletter article)
(No. 01-1289) 538 U.S. 408.
Issue: An award of punitive damages should be linked to reprehensibility of conduct.
Court should not establish a bright line ratio.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (223K pdf)
Carrington, Harold J. vs. Superior Court of CA, (2003)
Case No. 104694, CA Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate District, Division 4
Issue: Insurer should not be able to deny long term care policy
years later on basis of alleged misrepresentation on application where insured
now has Alzheimer's. (Post claims underwriting).
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company, (1998)
No. 44303 Supreme Court, New Jersey
Issue: trigger of coverage; all sums; estoppel; joint & several liability.
Cassim, Fareed v. Allstate Insurance Company, (2004)
No. S109711 Supreme Court of California
Issue: Insureds should have the right to recover attorney's fees incurred to recover
unpaid benefits.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (396K pdf)
Cello-Foil Products, Inc. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company, (1997)
No. 104107, 105981, 106678 Supreme Court, Michigan
Issue: In a policy involving environmental damage which actually
took place over many years and spanning multiple insurance policy periods,
coverage should not be limited only to insurance policies in effect at the time
the property damage is discovered or "first manifests."
Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Assoc v. Associated International Insurance, (2001)
B137320 2nd Appellate Division #3, Court of Appeal of California
Issue: Insurance companies should not be allowed to escape
liability simply by hiring an expert. As a matter of law, the insurance
company must conduct a fair and thorough investigation or whether or not it has
acted in bad faith is a question of fact, and not law.
Chauvin v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al., (2006)
Eastern District Louisiana. Civil Action 05-6454 c/w 06-0177.
Issue: Katrina case. The Court must reject State Farm's untenable and unsupported suggested
interpretation of the VPL which, in effect, seeks to render the VPL
inapplicable to situations where a covered peril and a non-covered peril were
each involved in the total loss to a covered property. The anti-concurrent
causation language upon which State Farm relied in connection with its
interpretation has already been deemed ambiguous as a matter of law by another
Federal Court addressing similar arguments raised by State Farm. Tuepker,
2006 WL 1442489 at * 5.Interpretation
of water damage exclusions in property policies and Louisiana's "Valued Policy
Law."
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.3MB pdf)
Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc. v. David J. And Marcia Wills, (1998)
No. 795-00-9808 CV 458 Supreme Court, Indiana
Issue: Insurers should not be allowed to use in-house
employee-attorneys to defend policyholder clients because the inherent conflict
of interest robs the policyholder of the right to a vigorous, independent and
zealous defense.
City of Chesapeake Virginia v. State Self-Insurers, (2005)
Issue: Extent of pollution exclusion. History is squarely
on the side of policyholders fighting against over reaching and unreasonable
applications of so-called absolute total pollution exclusions. United
Policyholders urged the Court to ensure that representations made by insurance
companies as to the meaning of exclusions when adopted remain the standard by
which the application of these provisions is later judged.
Clark Equip. Co. v. Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund., (1995)
Commonwealth of Mass. Supreme Judicial Court. Appeals Court Case No. 95-P-715.
Issue: Claims submitted to an insolvency fund.
Cold Creek Compost, Inc., et.al V. State Farm Fire & Casualty, (2006)
Case No. A114623, Court of Appeal, State of California.
Issue: Reasonable Expectations-pollution exclusion-duty to defend and indemnify.
This case involves the proper scope and application of the "reasonable
expectations doctrine." Composting facilities create offensive odors in the
ordinary course of business by composting mainly "green materials." A
reasonable policyholder under these circumstances would not consider the odors
produced by its operations to be an environmental pollution. Therefore, the
pollution exclusion in State Farm's policies does not exclude the Cold Creek
policyholders' liability in the Underlying Action.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (200K pdf)
Consolidated Edison Company v. Allstate Insurance Company, (2001)
Motion No. 956/01 Court of Appeals, State of New York
Issue: Insurance companies must pay the entire sum of any liability
caused by an accident or occurrence so long as the accident or occurrence
causes bodily injury or property damage within the policy period. Insurers
cannot escape liability by attempting to limit their obligation to property
damage alone.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (5MB pdf)
Consulting Engineers, Incorporated v. Insurance Company of North America, (1999)
No.
0017 E.D. Supreme Court, Eastern Division, Pennsylvania
Issue: Trigger of Coverage; public policy.
Consumer Federation of America et al. v. Maine Bureau of Insurance, (2003)
No. AP-03-37, Kennebec County Superior Court
Issue: Request made under Freedom of Information Act for
unredacted version of Arthur Anderson's report on UnumProvident's claims
handling and other practices for the Maine Department of Insurance.
Continental Casualty Company v. Superior Court (Paragon), (2001)
No. 5101679, U.S. Supreme Court, Appellate Case #B147084
Issue: UP filed a letter brief requesting review or depublication. UP supported position that the underlying allegations determine
both coverage and the duty to defend regardless of how they may be labeled.
Download Amicus Letter Brief of United Policyholders (872K pdf)
Cook, Heidi Sue v. American States Insurance Company, (1997)
No. 35941-0-1 Supreme Court, Washington
Issue: Absolute Pollution Exclusion
Corban v. United Services Automobile Association aka USAA Insurance Agency, (2008)
Supreme court of Mississippi, Case No. 2008-M-645
Issue: Katrina Case. Interlocutory Appeal. Addresses numerous issues:
1. In an "all risk" policy, once the insured proves that "a direct physical loss" was sustained, the insurer has the burden of proof to establish what portion of the "direct physical loss" was caused by a specifically excluded event or cause. 2. With a Katrina loss, which contains components of both wind and flood, the insurer should still have the burden of proving, through non-speculative evidence that personal property damage was caused by a specific exclusion. 3. If the court finds the anti-concurrent clause is not ambiguous, it should rule that wind and water damage are separate and only the "flood" damage is subject to the exclusion. 4. If the policy contains Additional Coverage for "collapse" the policy's exclusion for "water damage" should be inapplicable.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (276K pdf)
County of San Diego v. Ace Property & Casualty Ins. Co., (2003)
No. S114778 Supreme Court of California
Issue: The "damages" in an insurance policy should be interpreted broadly to include
much more than simply monies ordered by a Court. Even if a standard CGL policy
is limited only to monies ordered by a Court, Umbrella Policies, such as the
one in issue here were specifically intended to provide broader coverage and
fill gaps otherwise left uncovered in standard CGL policies.
County of San Diego v. Cigna Property and Casualty Company, (2003)
No. D038707 Court of
Appeal, 4th District, California
(companion case to Ace Property above.)
Issue: Duty of insurance company to cover claims not specifically
addressed by court.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.4MB pdf)
Country Mutual Ins. Co. v. Livorsi, (2006)
Supreme Court of Illinois, Docket No. 99807.
Issue: Insurance company must show prejudice if it denies a claim based on late notice (notice-prejudice rule).
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (972K pdf)
Culhane and Turbak v. Western National Mutual, (2005)
Supreme Court South Dakota
Issue: Automobile insurance issues.
Jean Cundiff v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, (2007)
Supreme Court of Arizona, No. CV-07-0057-PR, Court of Appeals No. 2 CA-CV 2005-0209, 213 Ariz. 541, 145 P. 3d
638 (App. 2006)
Issue: Under Arizona law, an insurer should not be allowed to use the "off-set"
clause in the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in order to reduce the
amount of UIM benefits paid to its policyholder by the amount of benefits the
policyholder received from a workers' compensation insurer.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (88K pdf)
Download Brief Supplemental Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (68K pdf)
Dana Corp. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et al., (1997)
No. 17171-6-II, Court of
Appeals, Indiana, 690 N.E. 2nd
Issue: Coverage for environmental liabilities.
Dart Industries v. Commercial Insurance Co., (2000)
No. S096518 State Supreme Court, California
Issue: Opposing a Court of Appeal Decision, UP urged that
insureds (including holocaust victims) who do not have copies of their original
policies be allowed to offer "secondary evidence" of lost documents to prove
the existence of the policies themselves.
Delgado v Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California (2008)
Case No. s15529, Supreme Court of California.
Issue: This case concerns the proper scope of an insurer's duty to defend its insured in circumstances indicating that the insured may have acted in self-defense. United Policyholders takes the position that whenever the lawsuit contains factual allegations or extrinsic evidence from which the insurer can infer that the insured may have acted under the apprehension, even if erroneous, that he or she may be in danger, the insurer has a duty to defend.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.6MB pdf)
Davaloo v. State Farm Insurance Company, (2005)
37 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 528. 2nd App. Dist.
Issue: The Davaloo opinion is a pleading case arising out of a property insurance dispute. The
opinion concerns whether or not an original complaint contained sufficient
factual allegations such that an amended complaint would timely relate back.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (104K pdf)
Download Exhibit A to UP Amicus Brief (52K pdf)
Download Exhibit B to UP Amicus Brief (444K pdf)
Download Exhibit C to UP Amicus Brief (852K pdf)
DeBruyn v.Superior Court (Farmers Group, Inc.), (2008)
Supreme Court of California, Case No. S161000. Petition for Review.
Issue: DeBruyn presents a critical issue regarding the rule of efficient proximate cause and Insurance code section 530 in the aftermath of this Court's opinion in Julien v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company (2005) 35 Cal.4th 747. It is important for this Court to grant the petition for review to affirm that an insurer cannot contract around Insurance Code section 530 and to clarify the confusion in the lower courts about the narrow application of this Court's holding in Julien.
Download Petition for Review (177K pdf)
This Petition for Review was written pro bono for United Policyholders jointly by Denise Jarman and Joel Westbrook.
Deni Associates of Florida v. State Farm, (1998)
Supreme Court
Issue: Ambiguity; absolute polluter's exclusion; reasonable
expectations of coverage.
Denmark v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, (2006)
First District, Case No. 05-2877. Mass.
Issue: Anti-consumer and anti-policyholder affects of denying
coverage in disability cases involving both a disease that is difficult to
document objectively and an overwhelming amount of medical evidence that favors
a finding of complete disability. Long term care insurance companies are
sometimes permitted too much discretion under the "arbitrary and
capricious" standard of review that courts apply in reviewing coverage
denials under ERISA.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.5MB pdf)
Download Brief Amicus Curiae Motion of United Policyholders (528K pdf)
Dipasquale v. Security Mutual Life Ins. Co., (2001)
No. 601780/98, Supreme Court of NY
Issue: Policyholders are entitled to know when an insurance
company provides financial incentives to deny claims and to know when their
confidential information is provided to Third Party Administrators.
The Downey Venture v. LMI Insurance Company, (1997)
Civ. No. B106304, Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate District, Division Three, California
Issue: Duty to Defend; Torts.
Duane Reade, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, (2005)
No. 03-9064, Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit.
Issue: Duane Reade, a chain store of sundries and prescription drugs lost its location
at the World Trade Center after 9/11. UP urged the court to consider the
original location of a policyholder's operations as critical to determining
coverage for the "period of restoration."
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (432K pdf)
Press coverage of case (172K pdf)
Ducote, Sr., Craig v. Koch Pipeline Company, LLP, (1998)
No. 98-C-0942 Supreme Court, Louisiana
Issue: Public policy requires that Standard-form, industry-wide
pollution exclusions should be interpreted narrowly so as not to yield
overbroad and unintended or absurd restrictions on insurance coverage.
E.M.M.I. Inc. V. Zurich American Insurance Company, (2002)
No. B152740 California Supreme Court
Issue: Letter brief urging depublication of opinion adopting a narrow interpretation
of coverage exclusion
Employers Insurance of Wausau, A Mutual Company v. City of Waukegan, Illinois, (1998)
No. 2-97-0606, 2-97-0901 Appellate Court, 2nd District, Illinois
Issue: The duty to defend should be determined solely from the
allegations appearing on the face of the complaint. In determining whether or
not the insurance company has the duty to defend, the trial court cannot
examine testimony, depositions, affidavits or other documents.
Engalla, Nida v. The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., (1996)
No. S048811 State Supreme
Court, California
Issue: When a contract of adhesion such as in a medical plan,
contains an arbitration clause, the judiciary should be able o review the
arbitration systems to determine their fairness and neutrality.
Everett v. State Farm General Insurance Company,, (2008)
Fourth Division 2, Case No. E41807, 08 C.D.O.S. 5181.
Issue: Request for Depublication. Underinsurance. Everett puts the onus on people who are not trained or competent to set policy limits. They and countless California homeowners who will be impacted by future wildfires and other natural disasters will be irreparably harmed by the continued publication of the Everett decision. Everett v. State Farm ignores long held California law and has already begun to exacerbate the problem of underinsurance. This court should depublish the opinion so insurers cannot use it to shield themselves from fulfilling the promises made to their insureds.
Download Amicus Letter Brief of United Policyholders (1.3MB pdf)
Excess Underwriters @ Lloyd's of London v. Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc., (2004)
No. 02-0730 Supreme Court of Texas
This case is covered below under Hollock.
Issue: Insurer's ability to recover defense costs from insureds.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.4MB pdf)
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of The Texas Association of Defense Counsel (264K pdf)
Read the Texas Supreme Court's Ruling (1.8MB pdf)
Download Exhibit A to UP Amicus Brief (2.1MB pdf)
Download Exhibit B to UP Amicus Brief (656K pdf)
Download Exhibit C to UP Amicus Brief (832K pdf)
Download Exhibit D to UP Amicus Brief (1.3MB pdf)
Download Exhibit E to UP Aicums Brief (840K pdf)
Download Order Granting Rehearing (340K pdf)
Factory Mutual Insurance Co. v. Northwest Aluminum, (2003)
No. CV-02-00198-KI, 9th Circuit, United States Court of Appeals
Issue: The doctrine of equitable tolling requires that suit limitations in a policy be
tolled between the date the insurer receives notice of the claim and the date
it denies the claim.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (6.2MB pdf)
Fairfield Insurance Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, (2004)
RP 04-0728, Supreme Court of Texas
Issue: The "all sums" language in a liability policy of insurance should be construed
to provide coverage for gross negligence and punitive damages.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2MB pdf)
Download Exhibit 1 to UP Amicus Brief (1.6MB pdf)
Download Exhibit 2 to UP Amicus Brief (1.7MB pdf)
Download Exhibit 3 to UP Amicus Brief (192K pdf)
Download Exhibit 4 to UP Amicus Brief (1.3MB pdf)
Download Exhibit 5 to UP Amicus Brief (76K pdf)
Download Exhibit 6 to UP Amicus Brief (240K pdf)
Farmington Casualty Company v. Cyberlogic Technologies, Inc., (1998)
No. 98-1611 Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, Michigan
Issue: Meaning of "arising out of" in an advertising injury claim.
Fayad v. Clarendon National Insurance Co., (2004)
FL S.C. Case 3D02-2447, Supreme Court Case No. SC03-1808
Issue: Earth movement exclusion should not be narrowly interpreted.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (92K pdf)
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. City of Lodi, California, (2001)
No. 99-158902 Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, United States
Issue: UP supports lower court decision and educates the court on insurance
company tactics, post claims underwriting, etc.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (9.8MB pdf)
First American Title Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2007)
146 Cal.App.4th 1564, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 734, Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Case No. B194004. UP letter brief requesting depublication filed on March 24th , 2007
Issue: Letter Brief. Plaintiffs must be allowed pre-certification discovery in class actions arising out of insurance marketing and underwriting practices which often involve damages to policyholders that are too small to warrant individual action.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (888K pdf)
First State Insurance Company v. Minnesota Mining Manufacturing Company, (1998)
No. C4-97-1872, CO-97-2257 Supreme Court, Minnesota
Issue: "disappearing decisions"; confidentiality orders.
Fleming v. USAA, (1997)
California.
Issue: pollution exclusion case: UP filed a petition for
reconsideration urging that the key definition of "pollutants" employed in
insurance policies is so overbroad as to be meaningless.
Fluoroware, Inc. v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, (1996)
No. C3-95-1809; No. CX-95-1810 Court or Appeals. Minnesota
Issue: Insurance companies should not be allowed to keep
information supporting coverage from the Courts of their policyholders.
Depublication of pro-policyholder decisions should not be condoned.
Foreign Car Center v. Travelers Indemnity, (1998)
No. 1:97-CV-12587 United States
District Court, Massachusetts
Issue: drafting history; polluter's exclusions; expected or
intended.
Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, (1997)
Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Division, California
Issue: PRP letters as suits; polluter's exclusion
401 Fourth Street Inc. v. Investors Ins. Group, (2004)
Issue: Since the term "collapse" in the policy is ambiguous and connotes only a substantial impairment of a
building's structural integrity, there must be coverage for "imminent collapse"
Court quotes UP's brief.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.5MB pdf)
Fuller-Austin Insulation Company, f/b/o
Fuller-Austin Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Highlands Insurance Company, et al., (2005)
Case No. 06-94 In the Supreme Court of the United States On Petition for a
Writ of Certiorari to The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate
District.
Issue: Insurer's obligation to bankrupt policyholder post discharge. Asbestos case.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (164K pdf)
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders Revised (92K pdf)
Gallagher Bassett Service Inc. v. Chas. Jeffcoat, (2003)
No. 98-TS-00192, Mississippi Supreme Court
Issue: Public service nature of insurance—duty of good faith
and fair dealing.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (4MB pdf)
Download Addendum to Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (8.8MB pdf)
Gamble Farm Inn, Inc v. Selective Insurance Company, (1995)
No. 92-01485 Court ofCommon Pleas, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania
Issue: Insured should have a reasonable expectation that the
third party administrator (TPA) administering a claim has an obligation of good
faith and fair dealing.
Galanty v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., (2000)
No. S073678 23 CA 4th 368 (2000) June 19, 2000
Issue: The two year incontestability clause in a policy cannot be
contradicted by a "First Manifest" provision under the definition of sickness
or any other language in the policy.
Gencorp Inc. v. AIU Insurance Co., (2004)
No. 04-3244, USCA, 6th Circuit
Issue: Coverage for environmental cleanup should be consistent with insured's reasonable expectations of coverage
General Refractories Corp. v. First State Insurance Co., (2006)
U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit. Pennsylvania. Case No. 05-4708.
Issue: The issue on appeal in this case primarily impacts commercial policyholders. A lower
court granted an insurer's motion and dismissed a policyholder's case because
they did not sue every possible insurer that had even a remote connection to
the underlying claim. If the holding is not reversed on appeal it will make it
prohibitively expensive for policyholders to assert their legal rights to
recover in many instances and will result in increased suits against
unnecessary parties.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.6MB pdf)
Download Motion Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (276K pdf)
Download Motion2 Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (240K pdf)
George, Albert, Pearl George, Karen Miller & Steven Jackson v. Guaranty National
Insurance Co., (1997)
No. 96-SC-512-D Supreme Court, Kentucky
Issue: Insurance coverage; "fairly debatable" standard;
reformation; bad faith; fiduciary duty; attorney-client privilege-standard of
review.
Gilbert, Bill v. Alta Health & Life Insurance and Great-West Life & Annuity Ins., (2002)
No. CV-00-J-1703-J Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, United States
Issue: Scope of ERISA preemption after Unum Life Insurance v. Ward. United Policyholders argued that remedial state statutes regulate
insurance and should not be pre-empted by ERISA.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (384K pdf)
Glanton (Alcoa) and Mackner v. Advancepe Health, LP, (2004)
Case No. 04-15328, USCA 9th Circuit
Issue: Participants and Beneficiaries suing on behalf of an ERISA plan under 502(a)
(2) should be able to seek money from the plan in the same manner as a
fiduciary. Petition for rehearing.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (40K pdf)
The Glidden Company v. Lumbermans Mut. Cas. Co., et al., (2004)
No. 81782, Ct. App. 8th Dist.
Issue: This case addresses the availability of insurance coverage
to corporate policyholders after corporate transactions. The insurance
companies had argued that certain corporate transactions eliminate insurance
coverage. The Ohio Court of Appeals disagreed in a significant opinion. They
held that the insured was entitled to benefits under the policies at issue for
pre-acquisition activities of a paint business, including the right to
indemnification and the right to a defense.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, (2002)
No. 00-1984Supreme Court of Ohio
Issue: Court adopted UP's argument that insurance companies cannot
require that insureds allocate damage among various policies.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3MB pdf)
Greenberg & Covitz v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh, PA, (1998)
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Issue: Claims handling; waiver of defenses not raised in denial
letter.
Greene v. Century National Insurance Co. et al., (2004)
Appellate Court Case No. B144789p
Issue: UP filed a letter brief requesting publication of decision because the case
resolves the question of the ability of the policyholder to claim public
adjuster fees as an item of damage where retention of the public adjuster was
necessitated by the insurer's bad faith conduct.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (300K pdf)
Griffin Dewatering v. Northern Ins. Co. of N.Y., (2007)
Case No. G036896, CA. Ct. App., Fourth Dist., Div. 3.
Issue: "Genuine
Dispute" and Brandt fees.. The genuine dispute doctrine should not apply when the insurer fails to
investigate the insured's claim thoroughly and bases its denial of a duty to
defend on an insufficient investigation. Indeed, the genuine
dispute doctrine has no application to the duty to defend in circumstances
where disputed facts establish a mere potential for coverage. That
potential is the basis of the duty to defend and the insurer's refusal to
assume that duty is bad faith as a matter of law. Moreover, even disputes
regarding the law do not immunize the insurer from liability for bad faith
where the insurer fails to thoroughly investigate the insured's claim and
relies on the first available pretext to deny its duty to defend. Rather,
only when the insurer thoroughly investigates both the facts and the law and
thereby reaches an objectively reasonable and legitimate basis for denial of
coverage does the genuine dispute doctrine apply.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.7MB pdf)
Joel C. Groshong, Joann Huth and Gary Huth v. Mutual Enumclaw Insurance Company, (1997)
SC No. S43912; CA No. A89325; TC No. 9407-04901, Supreme Court of Oregon
Issue: Doctrine of insurability; personal injury; occurrence.
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance et al., (2004)
Issue: The purpose of UP's brief was to educate the court on a
wide range of insurance policy exclusions that are creating claims disputes.
Hailey v. California Physicians' Service dba Blue Shield of California, (2007)
Case No. GO35579, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three.
Issue: Post Claims Underwriting. Health and Safety Code section 1389.3 was designed
to stop the practice of post-claims underwriting. Blue Shield should not be
allowed to engage in post-claims underwriting and rescind its policy when it
fails to sufficiently investigate and turns a blind eye to information it
either knew or had access to and ignored.
Haisch, Elizabeth v. Allstate Insurance Company, (2000)
No. CA-CV 98-0703 Court of Appeals, Division One, Arizona
Issue: An insurance company should not be allowed to sell med-pay
coverage without informing insured that if they are covered by an HMO, the
med-pay coverage is worthless.
Hale v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., (2003)
CA. Ct. of Appeal Case No. A092548, A092833
Issue: UP filed a request for publication of a decision supporting the insured's
claim for punitive damages and the application of Kransco (no comparative bad
faith) to first party cases.
Hameid, Mohammed A. v. National Fire Insurance of Hartford, (2002)
No. S104157 California Supreme Court, July 2002
Issue: In the context of an advertising injury when insured is a small business, the
coverage must be broadly defined to encompass the activities of a small business.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (280K pdf)
Hardy v. Progressive Speciality Ins. Co., (2003)
Supreme Court Montana, Case No. 02-448
Issue: Prohibiting stacking for policyholder's who pay multiple
premiums is not rationally related to making insurance affordable
style.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. SCI Liquidating Corporation, (1999)
No. S99Q15756 Supreme Court, Georgia
Issue: Up argues that the purpose of an umbrella general
liability policy is to provide coverage above a (nominal retained limit) for
claims deemed not to be covered by the underlying CGL policies.
Harris v. Unum Life Insurance Company, (2005)
U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Case. No. 05-4265
Issue: Unum denied claim; tutorial—public service nature of insurance;
insurance principles.
Francie E. Harrison v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, (2003)
U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Docket No. 05-1577
Issue: In absence of definition of "crime" in the policy, disability benefits should
not be denied when first time offense was considered a "violation" and not a
"crime."
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (388K pdf)
Henkel Corporation v. Lloyd's of London, (2003)
No. S0982427 Supreme Court, California
Issue: The fundamental characteristic of a general liability
policy (CGL) providing coverage on the basis of an occurrence is that the
policy never expires even after the policy expires. If the occurrence causing
the damage took place in the policy period, coverage should be provided
regardless of when the damage first manifests.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.1MB pdf)
Heritage Healthcare Services, Inc. et al. v. Beacon Mutual Insurance Company et al., (March 2007)
State of Rhode Island Superior Court, Providence S.C., C.A. No. 2002-7016
Issue: United Policyholders filed an amicus brief to educate the court on why documents and reports resulting from Market
Conduction Examinations conducted by state insurance regulators are
discoverable in civil litigation. The brief was filed on behalf of UP,
the Consumer Federation of America, the California Reinvestment Coalition, the
Empire Justice Center, and New Jersey Citizen Action.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (456K pdf)
Court Order denying discovery of draft MCE report (1.3MB pdf)
Hoffman, David M. v. State of Georgia, Office of Insurance Commissioner and John W. Oxendine, (2003)
No. A04A0134 Court of Appeals, Georgia
Issue: Brief requesting that the State of Georgia be forced to make the Insurance
Commissioner's investigative study of Unum Provident public.
Hollock v. Erie Ins. Exchange, (2004)
842 A.2nd 409, Ca Super
Issue: In Pennsylvania a violation of the Unfair Practices Act
should be relevant evidence of bad faith. An insurance company's violations of
its own internal guidelines, manuals and procedures is relevant evidence of bad
faith. Case upholds post –Campbell ratio of compensatory to punitive
damages of 10:1.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.9MB pdf)
Download Companion Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.1MB pdf)
See Penn Erie Insurance Exchange v. Hollock
Humana Inc. and Humana Health Insurance of Nevada, Inc. v. Mary Forsyth, (1999)
525 US 299 (1999)
Issue: Rico Claims; unfair trade practices.
Ieyoub, Richard P. v. The American Tobacco Company, (1998)
No. 97-31222 Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, United States
Issue: Arbitration.
Insurance Commissioner of CA v. Golden Eagle Insurance Co., (2002)
Court of Appeal of CA, 1st Appellate District, Div. 3, OSC No. 638
Issue: Scope of pollution exclusion/commercial policy.
International Recovery Corporation v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, (1995)
No. 95-1852 District Court of Appeals, 3rd District, Florida
Issue: Absolute polluter's exclusion; inconsistent coverage positions
Iowa Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund Board v. American States Insurance Company, (1996)
No. 96-510, Supreme Court of Iowa
Issue: Polluter's Exclusion; drafting history
Iowa Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund Board v. Farmland Mutual Insurance Company
No. 96-512, Supreme Court of Iowa
Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, Inc. et al, vs. United Health Group, Inc. et al., (2007)
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Civil Case No. 07-0506 (SJ)
Issue: Request to Intervene. It is unfortunate and unfair that mandatory arbitration is growing rapidly as a requirement for patients to receive necessary medical services. This Court should refuse to compel arbitration and allow the instant case to move forward to trial.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (doc)
Johnson Controls v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, (2003)
No. 01-1193 Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Issue: CGL coverage by a utility must include costs of clean up
for historical property damage including environmental response costs.
Johnson, Greg et al. v. Ford Motor Co., (2005)
No. S121723, Supreme Court of CA
Issue: The permissible ration of punitive to compensatory damages
after Campbell should not be limited to a bright line ratio.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.9MB pdf)
Jonathan Neil & Associates v. Jones et al., (2002)
98 Cal. App. 4th 434
Request for Depublication
Issue: Court held that the plaintiff could not state a cause of action for bad faith
for the failure to settle claims against him because the conduct in question
did not involve the payment of claims by the insured or the failure to settle
claims made against the insured. In the Court's point of view, a tort recovery
for an insurer's bad faith breach is available only in cases involving "the
limited issues of bad faith payment of claims and unreasonable failure to
settle."
Jones, Janet and Terry v. Allstate Insurance Co et al., (2000)
No. 46005-6-1 Supreme Court, Washington
Issue: Allstate cannot be allowed to deceive policyholders and
third party claimants by failing to inform them they may be in an adversarial
position with the insurance company and that the insurance company has no
obligation to protect the victim.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.5MB pdf)
Julian v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., (2005)
No. S109735, Supreme Court of California
Issue: UP took position that the scope of landslide exclusion
should not encompass damage from a tree that crashed into a home.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (68K pdf)
Download recent CA. Supreme Court decision referencing amicus brief of United Policyholders (64K pdf)
Kazi, Zubair and Khatija Kazi v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, (2000)
>No.B089804 Supreme Court, California
Issue: An easement must be considered tangible property and injury
there from must be covered under "property damage."
Kent Farms, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance Company, (1999)
No. 67635-6 Supreme Court, Washington
Issue: Insurance companies cannot abrogate their insurance
policies by applying in practice a more restrictive interpretation of coverage
than what was represented to the insurance commissioners in order to obtain
approval of the language of the policy and associated premiums.
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Tina Rodgers, (2003)
Kentucky Supreme Court
Issue: Punitive Damages; public service nature of insurance.
Ketzner v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., (2004)
USCA No. 03-4870, 3rd Circuit
Issue: Post complaint bad faith, RICO violations
Knotts v. Zurich Insurance Co., (2005)
No. 000-400, Supreme Court of Kentucky
Issue: Insurance Company has a continuing duty of good faith and fair dealing after a
lawsuit has been filed.
Koken v. Legion & Villanova Ins., (2003)
Nos. 204, 205, 211, 212, MAP, Pennsylvania. 2003
Issue: A reinsurer's obligation to make payments to the insured does not diminish
after insolvency.
Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company, (2000)
977 California p.2d 692 (1999)
Issue: An insurance company can no longer use the affirmative
defense of comparative bad faith to escape liability for bad faith claims
handling practices. Although this is a third party case, the reasoning has
been applied to first party cases as well. See Hale, above.
Kuwahara v. 20th Century Insurance, (1999)
No. S083217 Supreme Court, California
Issue: Statute of Limitations should not be invoked to deny coverage when the
untimliness of the claim was based on the insurance company's inadequate
investigation and misrepresentations regarding coverage.
Kvaerner Metals V. Commercial Union, (2004)
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Issue: Reasonable expectations of coverage; rules of interpretation; duty of good
faith and fair dealing
Labarre, Ann M. et al v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, (1999)
No. 9803097 Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, United States
Issue: Case applying Minnesota law. RICO assists and does not impair
the stats in their battles against insurance company fraud. RICO does not
conflict with Minnesota's regulatory system. Policyholders must be allowed to
pursue all other non-I insurance common law and statutory remedies.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3.7MB pdf)
Landry et al., v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (2008),
Supreme Court of Louisiana docket No. 2007-C-1908. Companion case to Williams, consolidated for oral argument with Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co. UP filed amicus briefs both in the Louisiana Supreme Court and the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit.
Issue: Value Policy Law requires the insurer to make full payment to the insureds regardless that the total loss was a result of a combination of covered and excluded perils under the insurance policy so long as the efficient proximate cause of the loss was a covered peril.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (496Kpdf)
Download Amicus Brief in Louisiana Supreme Court (872Kpdf)
Download Read Court of Appeal decision quoting from UPH brief (200Kpdf)
Larsen Oil Company v. Federated Service Insurance Company, (1995)
859 F. Supp. 434, Oregon, No. 94-35891 Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, United States
Issue: Scope of absolute pollution exclusion.
2130 Leavenworth Homeowners Assoc. v. State Farm Ins. Co., (2006)
Case No. A109367, Supreme Court, California
Issue: Request for Rehearing—UP argued that the Court of
Appeal improperly ignored the State Farm policy language obligating the insurer
to defend both claims and suits. By ignoring this language the First District
violated the rule in California that "insurance contracts are construed to
avoid rendering terms surplusage." Since State Farm's policy used both "claims"
and "suits" it clearly intended those terms of art to have separate and
different meanings.
Lebas Fashion Imports of USA v. ITT Hartford Insurance Group, (1996)
No. B083983 Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate District, Division 3, California
Issue: advertising injury; quasi-estoppel.
Lionel Simon v. San Paolo RS Holding Company, Inc., (2004)
No. S121933, Supreme Court of California
Issue: A careful reading of Campbell shows that the Supreme Court
did not lay down a single digit ratio for punitive damages and the decision was
not intended to deprive states of the ability to exercise their legitimate
state interests in deterring and punishing unlawful conduct through the use of
reasonable punitive damage awards.
See related case and brief in Johnson, Greg et al. v. Ford Motor Co.
Liristis, Carla et al v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., (2001)
No. CV 99-00046 Div. One Court of Appeals, Arizona
Issue: The cost of removing mold should be covered if the mold
occurred because of a covered loss.
Lititz Mutual Insurance Company v. Steely, (2000)
Appellate Division New York State
Issue: Reasonable expectations; "absolute" polluter's exclusion.
Lockheed Corp. v. Continental Ins.Co., (2005)
137 Cal. App. 4th 187
Issue: Interpretation of the personal injury liability ("PIL") coverage provision in
comprehensive general liability policies and its application to environmental
liability. Long standing positions taken by the insurance industry flatly
contracts the current position of the industry that violation or infringement
of property or contract rights claims are not with the PIL coverage. Insurance
companies must be prevented from contradicting positions taken by them at the
time the provisions at issue were drafted and in other insurance coverage
actions simply when it serves their own financial interests to do so. When
construing an insurance policy, the primary focus should be on the reasonable
expectations of the insured at the time the coverage was purchased.
Loyal Crownover v. Traveler's Casualty & Surety, (2003)
No. 40234 Superior Court Nevada
Issue: Exclusions in a policy cannot be buried in the boilerplate verbiage of the
grant of coverage. In this policy the promise of a defense under these
circumstances was clear and invoked the insurer's duty to defend.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.8MB pdf)
Maremont Corporation v. Edward William Chesire, (1996)
No. 96-0146 Appellate Court, 1st Judicial District, Division 3, Illinois
Issue: Estoppel; inconsistent coverage positions; public policy;
clean-up costs as damages.
Marselis, Anne v. Allstate Insurance Co., (2004)
CA Court of Appeal 2nd Appellate District, Division 3, 1st Civil No. A100860
Issue: Because it did not rely on the statute of limitations in
denying the claim, Allstate should be estopped from raising it as an
affirmative defense in a bad faith lawsuit filed against it by its
policyholder.
Mathis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (1999)
No. 98-36001 Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, United States
Issue: Court should unequivocally declare that the termination of an
insurance company employee for refusal to engage in bad faith conduct
contravenes a clear mandate of public policy and subjects the insurance company
employer to liability in tort for wrongful discharge.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (4.8MB pdf)
McKendry, Steven v. General American Life Insurance Company, (2001)
No. CV 96-0754-PKX-PGR, United States District Court, Arizona
Issue: UP sought to intervene in an action to unseal exhibits
that demonstrated Paul Revere's motives to deny claims. UP was allowed to
intervene but Court would not unseal documents.
Medallion Industries, Inc. v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, (1997)
No. 97-35317 Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, United States
Issue: Doctrine of insurability; Discrimination; accident.
Medical Society of the State of New York v. Gregory Serio, Superintendent of Insurance State of New York, (August 2002)
No. 116519/01 Supreme Court of the State of New York
Issue: UP supported the challenge to a regulation shortening the
amount of time injured parties have in which to bring an insurance claim.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.5MB pdf)
Medill v. Westport Insurance Corporation, (October 4, 2006)
143 Cal. App. 4th 819, 2006 Cal. App LEXIS 1537
Issue: Volunteer Board of Directors should be covered under D
& O policy and the Court should not so broadly construe the exclusion for
breach of contract so as to apply to tort claims because the lawsuit remotely
related to the corporation's breach of its bond obligations. Moreover, the
burden of proof to disprove the application of the breach of contract
exclusion, simply because the exclusion was hidden in the definition of a term
contained in the insuring clause of the policy. California Courts have always
held that the insurer bears the burden to prove that an
exclusion precludes coverage.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (108K pdf)
Mesa Operating Company v. California Union Insurance Company, (1998)
No. 05-06-00986-CV Court of Appeals, 5th District, Texas
Issue: The evidence presented supports the conclusion that the
insurance industry represented that the State Board of Insurance understood the
"sudden and accidental" pollution exclusion did not reduce existing coverage
for pollution damages that were neither expected nor intended.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (656K pdf)
Metz, John v. Superior Court of California, (2004)
No. B175073, Court of Appeal, State of California, 2nd Appellate District
Issue: Up supports relief under section 1871.7 which deputizes
private citizens to act on behalf of the state claiming that Farmers Insurance
Co. makes misrepresentations in its handling of private passenger vehicle
physical damage claims and in the sale and marketing of its private passenger
vehicle physical damage related insurance policies.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (560K pdf)
Millers Capital Insurance Company v. Gambone Brothers Dev. Co., et al., (2007)
Docket No. 420 EDA 2007 (Pa Super.)
Issue: Case involves insurance coverage for property damage resulting from faulty
workmanship by an insured contractor and its subcontractors. The standard form
general insurance liability policy ("CGL") was intentionally designed to cover
the underlying claims of faulty workmanship.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.5MB pdf)
Monticello Insurance Company v. Baecher, (1996)
No. 960193 State Supreme Court, Virginia
Issue: Trigger of coverage: occurrence: application of absolute polluter's exclusion
Morris, Martin v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, (2003)
No. G030567, 4th Appellate District, Division 3
Issue: Request for depublication of opinion which held that bad faith liability
cannot be imposed upon an insurer as a matter of law where there are
uncertainties in controlling case law even if the insurer is wrong on the law.
Motiva Enterprises, LLC v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. etc., (2005)
Case No. 05-20139, USCA, 5th District
Issue: The insurer should not forfeit coverage by settling without
insurance company's authority when the insurance company intentionally place
itself in an adversarial position with its insured by issuing a Reservation of
Rights.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (68K pdf document)
Court's Decision (248K pdf)
Impact of Decision (52K pdf)
Mealey's Article re: Decision (4MB pdf)
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh v. Beatrice Crocker, (2000)
Supreme Court of Texas, Docket No. 06-0868
Issue: The Court should confirm the well-established rule that
insurance companies owe their policyholders and additional insureds a duty to
disclose coverage. Moreover, an insurance company cannot rely on lack of
formal notice when it (a) receives actual notice or (b) has not been prejudiced
by a lack of notice.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (4.4MB pdf)
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Beville , (2003)
(companion case) Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Richardson, (2004)
No. SC02-2385 Supreme Court of Florida
Issue: Court should consider the historical circumstances surrounding the drafting of
the Absolute Pollution Exclusion (APE) and limit its application to long-term
industrial pollution of the environment and should not allow insurance
companies to apply the APE to cases that do not involve environmental pollution.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders of Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Richardson companion case (8.1MB pdf)
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Chillura, (2005)
No. 2D04-4906, In the District Court, 2nd District, Florida
Issue: A building's foundation system is an integral component of
any building. Accordingly, declaring a foundation system part of the "land"
and not part of the building in order to deny coverage is misconstruing and
misapplying both Florida Statute No.627.706 and related insurance policy
provisions. In many or all property liability insurance contexts, (e.g., fire,
windstorm, water, etc.), a property's infrastructure, internal, and its
external components are examined to determine the full extent of damage or
loss. There is no valid reason for treating sinkhole damaged property any
differently.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (132K pdf)
Norfolk Southern et al v. California Union Insurance Co., (2002)
No. 2002-CA-371 Court of Appeal, First Circuit, State of Louisiana, October 2002
Issue: The Court should affirm its decision to allow joint and
several liability where the loss may be covered by several insurance policies
and not allow the insurer's pro-rata allocation scheme which puts the burden on
insureds.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (6.1MB pdf)
Norman, George v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (2002)
No. CV-01-04554-PR Supreme Court, Arizona
Issue: UP argued that the Court should not use admittedly bad
facts to justify insurer's failure to satisfy Arizona's auto insurance
cancellation provisions.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (220K pdf)
Old United Insurance Company, dba Vantage Casualty Company v. Don Buhrman, (2006)
Fourth Appellate District, California
Issue: Insurance Policy contained a compulsory arbitration clause which Insurance
Company ignored forcing insured to incur expenses for litigation as well as
loss of time. Under these circumstances, damages for breach of contract are
insufficient. Only a tort rationale will provide compensation for the
consequential damages suffered by the policyholder.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.5MB pdf)
Padilla Construction Company, Inc., v. Transportation Insurance Company, (2007)
Case No. G036451, In the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three.
Issue: Request for modification of previous decision.
The CGL policies at issue potentially cover all damages because of the property damage alleged in the Padilla
lawsuit, including property damage
that may have occurred prior to inception of the Stage 4 Primary Insurer's
policies. Therefore, the Padilla lawsuit
was not a "mixed action." That means that Stage 4 Primary Insurer's duty to defend the entire lawsuit was a
contractual duty rather than the prophylactic duty discussed in Buss
and the Stage 4 Primary Insurer would not be entitled
to seek reimbursement of defense costs related solely to damages because of
property damage that occurred outside of the Stage 4 Primary Insurer's policy
period. Thus, the portions of the Court's Opinion that discuss the defense
obligations of insurers in "mixed" actions and an insurer's right to seek
reimbursement of defense costs are not necessary to the Court's holding.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (192K pdf)
Read Proof of Service (76K pdf)
Patrick, Patricia v. UNUM, (2001)
No. S098602 California Supreme Court
Issue: The scope of ERISA preemption should not be extended
beyond congress' intent and should not be allowed to preempt first party
insurer bad faith tort claims.
Paul Revere Life Insurance Company v. Taylor, (2004)
Case No. C99-21104JF
Issue: Paul Revere must expressly inform its policyholder that it
is reserving its right to exercise its discretion in making a disability
determination.
Payton, Dolores v. Aetna/US Healthcare, (1990)
No. 99/100440 Supreme Court, County of New York, New York
Issue: Tutorial for the Court re: Insurance Ethics; duty of good
faith and fair dealing; insurance as a product; insurance companies as
fiduciaries; public service nature of insurance.
Download Court Order referencing UP amicus brief
Peerless Lighting Company v. American Motorists Ins. Co., (2000)
No. AO 82975, AO83487, AO84373 1st Appellate Dist., Alameda County, CA
Issue: Request to Grant Petition for Review. Duty to Defend Case. UP supported the position that the duty to defend attaches as soon as there is
a possibility that the allegations of the complaint fall within the coverage of the policy.
Download Amicus Letter Brief of United Policyholders (1.1MB pdf)
Penn-America v. Mike's Tailoring, (2005)
S131639, Supreme Court of California
Issue: Scope of water damage exclusion involving issues of proximate
and concurrent causation.
Download letter ( 101K pdf)
Penn Erie Insurance Exchange v. Hollock: See under Hollock, (2004)
Issue: Involved an uninsured motorist's claim. UP brief supported
insured's position that the claim was handled in bad faith.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.9MB pdf)
Download Companion Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.1MB pdf)
Perez v. Fire Insurance Exchange, (2005)
Civil No. F043931, Court of Appeal, 5th Appellate District, California.
Issue: Corporate Structure of Farmer's Insurance Exchange.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (952K pdf)
Permanent General Assurance Corp. v. SCOC (Hernandez), (2004)
S129123, Supreme Court of CA
Issue: The discovery and admissibility of evidence of pattern and
practice of unfair claims handling. Request for depublication.
Philip Morris USA v. Mayola Williams, (2006)
In the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 05-1256
Issue: Review of Court's previous decisions regarding punitive damages. The Court
should not be setting substantive due process standards for punitive damage
cases. Lower Courts have interpreted the Court's opinion in Campbell V.
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., as requiring a single digit ratio for the
award of punitive damages. UP does not agree with this interpretation. UP
takes that position that Campbell is unclear on this issue and before
state courts automatically apply the single digit ratio, which is often in
conflict with state law requirements for such as award, the Supreme Court of
the United States must clarify its position.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (196K pdf)
Pilkington North America v. Travelers, (2005)
In the Supreme Court of Ohio, Case No. 2005-0378
Issue: Relying on the majority rule, UP supported the argument that a corporate policyholder is
entitled to a defense and indemnity for pre-acquisition liabilities because
liability insurance coverage follows the alleged liability by operation of law.
The majority of courts have held that anti-assignment clauses do not apply to
the transfer of coverage rights or choses in action after a loss has taken
place. This position also is consistent with the custom and practice of
insurance companies and corporate policyholders alike.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.8MB pdf)
Pincheira v. Allstate Insurance Company, (2002)
No. 22,760 Court of Appeals, State of New Mexico
Issue: UP opposes Allstate's attempts to shield important
documents regarding claims handling practices based on trade secrecy status.
Secrecy allows corporate misdeeds by insurers to continue unchecked.
Plastics Engineering Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, (2008)
State of Wisconsin Supreme Court, Appeal No. 2008AP333
Issue: occurrence and allocation of risk. Because the incident giving rise to liability was each individual plaintiff's continuous or repeated exposure to asbestos and not the business decision to manufacture asbestos or a failure to protect against their alleged hazards, the only plausible way to interpret occurrence is that it refers to the immediate proximate cause of each claimant's injuries. Therefore, the Court should conclude that each underlying claimant's exposure to asbestos constitutes a separate occurrence. (2) The Court should also hold that each CGL policy triggered by an asbestos claim must pay all sums up to its policy limits, subject to the insurer's right to seek contribution from other insurers whose policies are also triggered.
This brief was written pro bono for United Policyholders by Paul G. Kent and Alan G.B. Kim, of Anderson & Kent.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.1MB pdf)
Powerline Oil Company, Inc. v. Superior Court of California (Central National Fire Insurance
Company), (2003)
Supreme Court, State of California, Case No. S 113295
Issue: When a policy uses the terms "suit" and "claim" in its "ultimate net loss provision",
the insurer must provide coverage for a lawsuit in a court of law and other
judicial proceedings.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (84K pdf)
Quan v. Truck Exchange, (1999)
Case No. 5071510, California Appellate Court.
Issue: Amicus in support of request for review. Duty to Defend.
Radian Guaranty Ins. v. Respondents, (2003)
SF 15404-A OAH No. N2002070670
Issue: UP supports DOI ruling that two companies that do not meet
California criteria for title insurers to cease and desist from transacting
title insurance.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3.5MB pdf)
Ravindran v. Harleysville Insurance Company, (2003)
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Issue: Tutorial to court re: utmost good faith; bad faith;
arbitration.
Richard, Alan v. Lloyds of London, (1996)
No. 95-55747, 95-56467, United States Court of Appeals 9th Circuit
Issue: Lloyds of London should be judicially estopped from
asserting inconsistent positions with regard to enforcement of forum selection
and choice of law clauses.
Rocky Cola Cafe v. Golden Eagle, (2003)
California Appellate Court
Case No. S117935
Issue: There is no authority for an insurer who provides a litigation defense to seek
TOTAL reimbursement of all funds on grounds that it never had a duty to defend
in the first place.
Rohm and Haas Company v. Continental Casualty Company, (1999)
No. 00670PHL98 & 00671PHL98 Supreme Court, Eastern Division, Pennsylvania
Issue: Pennsylvania should require proof of fraud on an
application for insurance by clear and convincing evidence and should not adopt
a "known loss" standard which drastically lowers the insurer's burden.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (8.1MB pdf)
Rosen, George v. State Farm General Insurance Company, (2003)
No. S108308 California Supreme Court
Issue: Imminent collapse must be covered under the collapse coverage section otherwise
the result is unconscionable.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (84K pdf)
Round Rock Plaza Venture and Robert Tiemann v. Maryland Ins. Co., (1996)
Case No. 03-95-00108-CV Texas Court of Appeal, 3rd Dist. Austin.
Issue: Pollution Exclusion.
Rush Prudential HMO v. Debra Moran, (2001)
No. 00-1021 United States Supreme Court
Issue: ERISA'S saving clause must defeat a claim that the law is
pre-empted because it provides a remedy other than those set forth in ERISA
section 502.
Download 2005 Law Journal Commentary (128K pdf)
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (6.5MB pdf)
Safeco Insurance Company vs. Parks, (2008)
Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, California. Case No. B199364 (consolidated with B200267)
Issue: Disclosure Requirement - Under 10 Cal. Code Regs. Secti9on 2695.4(a) mandates that when a claim is made to the insurer, the insurer must disclose...all benefits, coverage, time limits or other provisions of any insurance policy issued by that insurer that may apply to the claim presented by the claimant. This provision should be applied as written. The only entity in the tripartite relationship among a liability claimant, an insured and the insurer who has the expertise and the information to locate any and all policies potentially applicable to the loss is the insurer. Imposing a duty on the I insurer to disclose information it knows - or has ready access to - and which the insured may not understand or realize, restores the balance of power in the relationship and puts all parties on a level playing field.
This brief was written pro bono for United Policyholders by Sharon J. Arkin.
Safeway Insurance Co. v. Guerrero, (2004)
No. CV-04-0146-PR, Court of Appeals No. 1-CA-CV 02- 0661, Supreme Court of Arizona
Issue: When an insurer has failed in some respect to fulfill a legal duty to its
insured, the insured can enter into a reasonable settlement agreement without
the insurer's permission.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3MB pdf)
Salem Suede, Inc. vs Zion Realty Corp., (1998)
No. 96-13184-JNF, 96-14692-JN, United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Massachusetts
Issue: Insurance companies which have allegedly violated their
independent duty of good faith and fair dealing to innocent injured third party
claimants cannot be allowed to misuse the bankruptcy process to escape
potential statutory liability to third parties.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (4MB pdf)
Schwartz et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, (2007)
United State Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, (New York) Docket No. 07-2794-cv (L), 07-2818-cv (CON).
Issue: The Policyholder should not forfeit coverage under the policy when the
policyholder settles a claim without the insurance company's authority, after
the insurance company intentionally placed it interests adverse to those of the
policyholder by issuing a reservation of rights and without any showing that
the insurance company was prejudiced by the settlement.
Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Essex Insurance Company, (2002)
No. 804650, Orange County Superior Court, California
Issue: Request for depublication. In construction defect
litigation, the Court should not blindly enforce the condition-precedent
language of the special subcontractor's endorsement. If it does,
extra-contractual considerations that are cited for enforcement of the
endorsement will be ignored.
Security Insurance Co of Hartford v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co, (2002)
AC 21960 Appellate Court of State of Connecticut
Issue: Drafting history sanctions the policyholder's right to
designate which general liability insurance policies are liable to respond
fully to a continuing injury. This is inconsistent with any "pro-rata"
allocation among insurers.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.7MB pdf)
Security Mutual Life Ins v. Christopher Dipasquale, (2000)
No. 601780/98 Appellate Division, New York Supreme Court
Issue: Years after selling a policy, Security Mutual entered into
a secret agreement with Berkshire Life delegating to Berkshire the right and
obligation to handle security mutual claims. It then applied Mass. Law to New
York Policyholders without telling them. UP took position that this
constituted a fraudulent nondisclosure amounting to bad faith.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (760K pdf)
SER Allstate Insurance Co. v. John T. Madden, (2004)
No. 31392 Supreme Court of Appeals, West Virginia
Issue: See State of West Virginia v. Madden below.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2MB pdf)
Serio, Gregory v. Allstate Insurance Company, (2001)
No.00-7769 & 00-7780, State of New York Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States
Issue: UP takes position that the State cannot require its
citizens to buy a product and then be forced to stand by powerless in the face
of the undesirable product claims in the advertising campaigns for the mandated
product.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3.2MB pdf)
Shapiro, Paul v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company, (2000)
No. 99-7980(L) Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States
Issue: Section 349 of the General Business Code makes it possible
for insurance companies to be compelled to pay the legal costs of policyholders
who successfully sue their insurance companies. It is very important that this
section of the business code be enforced fully and fairly. The policyholder
should not be required to prove an extensive pattern of conduct by the
insurance company in order to invoke Section 349.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.9MB pdf)
Sher v. Lafayette Insurance Company et. al. (2008)
Supreme Court of Louisiana, Docket No. 2007-C-2443 and 2007-C-2441. Consolidated with Landry v. Citizens for oral argument.
Issue: Katrina case. Ambiguity of flood exclusion. The Shers had an “all risk” policy which extends coverage for all fortuitous losses, unless the policy contains a specific exclusion. A lower court considered a “flood” exclusion in the Lafayette all-risk policy and found it too ambiguous to exclude coverage for Katrina damage to a home. The case also addressed continuing duty of good faith and fair dealing. United Policyholders urges the Court to leave the lower court ruling intact and take the position that an insurer should be held liable for the enhanced statutory penalties of La.Rev. Statute section 22:658 when bad faith conduct continued after the amendment to the statute was enacted. United Policyholders’ brief was drafted pro bono by Deborah Trotter, Chip Merlin and Mary Kestenbaum of the Merlin Law Group.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (152K pdf)
Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. V. City of Desert