About the Amicus Library

Welcome to the Amicus Project library. Here you will find copies of the briefs we have filed on behalf of insurance consumers. UP brings a unique consumer voice before courts confronting insurance issues - reminding judges that there are real people who have suffered real loss behind the case captions.

At the time UP published its 2011 report entitled: "Twenty Years Protecting, Defending and Advancing Policyholders Rights" we had filed 300+ briefs since our founding in 1991. UP's Amicus Project output has grown exponentially and more and more courts are hearing our voice and adopting our arguments. 

UP's Amicus Project is made possible by the hundreds of dedicated policyholder attorneys who generously volunteer their time to write our briefs. Click here to view the attorneys who make up our Amicus Project Team

To request that UP weigh in on a case, please complete this Request Form.

Year:
2017
Court:
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Issue:
Contract Interpretation, Environmental Liabilities, Trigger of Coverage
State:
Pennsylvania

UP appeared with other amici (Alco Industries, Inc., Allegheny Technologies, Inc. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation Arkema Inc., Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

Year:
2017
Court:
Louisiana Supreme Court
Issue:
Statute of Limitations, Bad Faith
State:
Louisana

Under Louisiana law (statute), a policyholder's coverage claim against its insurer should be subject to a 10-year prescriptive period.

Year:
2017
Court:
Colorado Supreme Court
Issue:
Pre-judgment interest, Garnisgment proceedings
State:
Colorado

Many states have enacted statutes that encourage insurance companies to pay policyholders, or those who stand in their shoes, promptly benefits owing under an insurance policy.

Year:
2017
Court:
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Issue:
State:
California

Insurance policies rarely, if ever, exclude coverage for negligent or reckless conduct.

Year:
2017
Court:
U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
Issue:
Estoppel of Coverage Defenses, Tripartite Relationship/Privilege
State:
Arizona

When an insurance company obtains confidential information from coverage counsel for the insured, it is estopped from asserting coverage defenses based upon the improperly obtained information.

Year:
2017
Court:
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Issue:
Absolute Pollution Exclusion, Duty to Defend
State:
Oregon

The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. It is the most fundamental duty of a liability insurer.

Year:
2017
Court:
California Supreme Court
Issue:
Allocation and Contribution, Excess Insurance
State:
California

UP submitted letters requesting depublication of the appellate decision and supporting review by the California Supreme Court.

Year:
2017
Court:
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Issue:
Reasonable Expectations, Coverage and Exclusions
State:
California

Fundamental principles of California insurance law ensure that coverage exclusions are construed narrowly to avoid defeating the mutual intentions of the parties and, particularly, the reasonable... Read more

Year:
2017
Court:
Arizona Supreme Court
Issue:
Bad Faith, Punitive Damages
State:
Arizona
Year:
2017
Court:
California Supreme Court
Issue:
Notice Prejudice, Choice of Law, Consent Provisions
State:
California

The notice prejudice rule protects policyholders from undue forfeiture of benefits when they fail to report a claim within the applicable insurance policy's deadline.