United Policyholders Amicus Project

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.

ACE American Insurance Company, v. Underwriters at Lloyds and Companies, et al.,, (2008)
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, No. 45 EAP 2008.
Issue: Errors and Omissions, or "E&O" insurance. If an insurance company attempts to avoid its coverage obligations under a claims-made policy due to "late notice," the insurance company must bear the burden to prove that notice was late, just like under an occurrence policy. Even when policies are drafted to require a policyholder to report a claim to the insurance company within the policy period or within a certain number of days thereafter, the insurance company still should be required to prove that notice was provided late and that the insurance company was materially prejudiced by the delay. Allowing an insurance company to collect full premiums yet refuse coverage based on mistake or technicality where the insurance company cannot demonstrate that it would have acted materially differently had it received notice earlier or that its costs will now be higher simply "is unduly severe and inequitable."

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.

Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. v. American International Speciality Lines Insurance Co., (2010)
Case No. 09-11075, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Issue: This appeal addresses two issues of importance to policyholders across the country: (1) can “property damage” to the insured’s “product” be considered an “accident” or “occurrence” for purposes of coverage under an umbrella liability policy; and (2) do exclusions in an underlying primary policy apply to the true umbrella (as opposed to follow-form) coverage available under an umbrella policy. UP's brief was written pro bono by John Ellison, Esq. of Reed Smith LLP.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders.
Download Motion For Leave To File Brief.

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 a^?oewhether 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 a^?oesubjecta^?? 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, 3^rd 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.

American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin, et al, v. Hon. John E. Davis, Ballesteros, L&A, Real Parties in Interest., (2008)
Supreme Court of Arizona, Case No. CV 08-0233-SA, Arizona Court of Appeals, No. 2 CA-SA 2008-0032
Issue: Whether form in Spanish should be given to a Spanish speaker. When there are multiple forms available to insurance companies, as is the case here, the option to use one or the other should be made by the insured, not by the insurance company. Giving the insured the option to select the form in either English or Spanish, as contrasted to leaving this decision in the hands of the insurer, advances the legislative goals underlying the Arizona Uninsured Motorist Act. (UMA)

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, 3^rd 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, 2^nd 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)
A Look Back at Insurance Law in 2008: New York’s Highest Court Confirms that Insurance Companies are Liable for Consequential Damages Just Like Anyone Else (356K 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. 4^th 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, 1^st 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 3^rd 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, 1^st 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)

See also: William F. "Chip" Merlin, Jr., Corban v. USAA: A Case Providing Far Too Little Because It Was Rendered Far Too Late: 79 Miss. L.J. MISSing Sources 129 (2010), Fall 2009 UP print newsletter article on Corban, and October 2009 UP Enews article.

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. 2^nd
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.

Davis v. Ford Motor Credit Company, (2010)
California Supreme Court, Case No. S179049, Amicus letter in support of petition to review.
Issue: Standing under the California UCL/B&P 17200. Resolve the important question of what standard should apply when a consumer (as opposed to a business) brings a claim challenging an alleged "unfair" business practice in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. ("UCL").
This brief was prepared pro bono for United Policyholders by Kim E. Card.

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. 3^rd 528. 2^nd 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 Letter in Support of Petition for Review (177K pdf)
UP's Letter Brief in Support of 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, 2^nd 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, 2^nd 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, 9^th 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)

Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, et al., vs. German Motors Corp. et al., (2007)
Case No. S158329.
Issue: Letter brief requesting Petition for Review of Appellate decision. Under a garage keepers policy the phrase "necessary or incidental to" when evaluating scope of coverage is not supported by the broader interpretation contained in published opinions in other states or any published opinions in California. Allowing the restrictive interpretation of the Appellate Court to stand contravenes California's long standing interest in finding ways to grant, rather than deny, insurance coverage. See Mariscal v. Old Republic Life Ins. Co. (1996) 42 CA 4th 1617.

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, 6^th 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, 3^rd 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 9^th 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. 8^th 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)

Griffith Oil Company, Inc. V. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, (2009)
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division—Fourth Department, Appellate Division Docket Nos. CA 08-00930 and CA 08-026565.
Issue: UP urges the Court to reverse the lower court’s ruling that a Products Completed Operations Hazard provision includes a restrictive condition that the policyholder physically possesses its product prior to the occurrence. The plain language of the insurance policy, and the fundamental purpose behind the provision, and the reasonable expectations of the policyholder do not support such a requirement. This brief was written pro bono for United Policyholders by John G. Nevius, Esq.

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.Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (280K pdf)

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)

Hardt, Bridget v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, (2010)
In the Supreme Court of the United States, Case No. 09-448.
Issue: ERISA- fee award. Based on long-standing Supreme Court precedent relating to prevailing party status under fee-shifting statutes, Social Security disability benefit claimants who win remands are entitled to see fees regardless of whether they ultimately prevail in securing an award of benefits. Given the similarity in nature of ERISA remands, no logical ground exists to distinguish the availability of fee awards under ERISA from the well-established law relating to EAJA [Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2412(d)(1)(A). This brief was written pro bono for United Policyholders by Mark D. DeBofsky. Hardt v. Reliance analysis by Mark DeBofsky.

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.

Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company vs. Buzz Off Insect Shield, (Jan 2009)
Supreme Court of North Carolina, Case No. 272A08, Appellate Court No. COA07-1002
Issue: The policyholder's ultimate liability has no bearing on the determination of whether an insurance company must defend the policyholder against a suit for "personal injury advertising injury." Whether an insurance company has a duty to defend depends solely on the allegations contained in the underlying complaint. Using the "comparison test" the court must read the pleading side-by-side with the insurance policy to determine whether any allegations in the complaint could possibly be covered. In order for the failure to conform exclusion to apply, courts have held that the underlying complaint must contain specific allegations that the policyholder's good fail to conform to the quality or performance advertised. Even if a policyholder is accused of mischaracterizing its own products in advertising, the failure to conform exclusion does not apply if the policyholder allegedly disparages, even implicitly, its competitor's products. Only where the underlying complaint alleges the policyholder misrepresented its own products and its misrepresentations did not implicitly disparage a competitors products have courts applied the failure to conform exclusion. This amicus brief was written pro bono for United Policyholders by C. Douglas Maynard, Jr.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.1MB pdf)

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)

Henner v. Gemini Insurance Co., (2010)
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Department. Docket Nos. CA 09-01832 and CA 01-01833.
Issue: Whether the lower court erred in dismissing policyholder’s claim for insurance coverage based on untimely notice by failing to consider prejudice to the insurance companies. UP's brief was written pro bono by John G. Nevius, Esq. and Raymond A. Mascia Jr., Esq. of Anderson Kill & Olick, PC. Of Counsel: Amy Bach, Esq. Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders.

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.2^nd 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.

Hyundai Motor America v. National Union fire Insurance Company, (2009)
No. 08-56527, The United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit, Central District California case no. 8:08 cv 00020.
Issue: Duty to Defend, Advertising Injury. The district court erroneously held that ?gadvertising injury?h insured under the CGL Policies at issue did not include ?gan injury caused by patent infringement even if that injury occurs during the course of an advertising activity.?h The district court also failed to properly apply the California Rules governing the interpretation of insurance policies, including the requirement to interpret ambiguous insurance policy language in a manner that protects the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured. The court below failed to apply California law correctly when it failed to engage in the same rigorous analysis as employed by the courts in Lebas Fashion, Mez and Homedics. As made clear by the holding in Lebas Fashion, the phrase ?gmisappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business?h and its constituent terms are ambiguous. Accordingly, under controlling California law, the court below was obliged to interpret the operative policy language in accordance with the insured's objectively reasonable expectations of coverage.
This brief was prepared pro bono for United Policyholders by Lee M. Epstein
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (pdf)

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, 1^st 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. 4^th 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, 3^rd 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. 20^th 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

Kwikset Corp. v. S.C. (Benson), No. S171845, (2009)
California Supreme Court
Issue: Petition for Review: Under Kwikset the courts willnot be open to challenge a falsely advertised product unless the plaintiff also alleges and proves a defect in the product, or that cheaper alternatives were available, or that the product was not "worth" what the consumer paid. This has nothing to do with standing as that concept is usually understood (meaning a sufficiently concrete and direct interest). Mor4eover, the Kwikset court's stringent requirements are difficult enough to prove with evidence, much less to allege at the pleading stage, before discovery, when standing is often determined. If Kwickset is the law, the negative impact on California's false advertising prohibitions will be substantial.
This petition was prepared pro bono for United Policyholders by Pamela Gilbert

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.

LM ERICSSON TELEFON, AB AND ERICSSON INC., v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. 509/QF037603, (2009)
In the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, Case Nos. 09-0012 & 09-0013
Issue: This case addresses what it means when an insurance contract incorporates and makes the insured’s policy application a part of the policy of insurance.

In 2003, Ericsson Inc. submitted an application for errors and omissions liability insurance, which named its parent company, LM Ericsson Telefon, AB (“LM Ericsson”), as an entity requesting coverage under the policy to be issued. The insurer, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (“AISLIC”), did not deny the application, but rather issued a policy incorporating the application and making it a part of its policy. Later, after LM Ericsson became involved in litigation, AISLIC denied coverage on the basis that LM Ericsson was not insured by the policy.

In the coverage lawsuit that followed between Ericsson, AISLIC and Underwriters (Ericsson’s follow-form excess insurers), LM Ericsson argued that the term identifying who is insured under the AISLIC policy, “you,” was defined in the application to include “LM Ericsson.” Therefore, because the application was part of the contract, LM Ericsson argued that the AISLIC policy should be interpreted to provide coverage for LM Ericsson. LM Ericsson also argued that AISLIC accepted its application by issuing a policy expressly incorporating the application and making it a part of the contract. Alternatively, to the extent that the terms of the AISLIC policy, including the incorporated application are ambiguous, LM Ericsson argued that the AISLIC policy should be construed in favor of coverage.

The trial court hearing the coverage lawsuit granted summary judgment finding that LM Ericsson was insured under the primary and follow-form excess policies issued by AISLIC and Underwriters. The Court of Appeals reversed finding that LM Ericsson was not insured under either policy. The UP amicus brief supporting LM Ericsson’s position was prepared pro bono by Lorena Trujillo, John N. Ellison, Toki Rehder, Whitney D. Clymer of Reed Smith, LLP
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (724K pdf)

Lockheed Corp. v. Continental Ins.Co., (2005)
137 Cal. App. 4^th 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 2^nd Appellate District, Division 3, 1^st 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)

Medina v. Safe-Guard Products International, Inc.,, (2008)
California, Fourth District Division Three, Case No. G038816
Issue: Letter Brief Request for Depublication; B & P17200 case dealing with Unlicensed Insurers. Publication threatens to undermine the enforcement of California's insurance licensing laws in two ways: 1) purchasing unlicensed insurance does not constitute "injury fact" a necessary perquisite for standing for private plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit under Business and Professions Code section 17200. This would, in fact, abrogate the "unlawful" prong of (2 decision suggests in dictum that only rescission, not restitution is available as a remedy which means that unlicensed insurers will be able to use Medina to argue that they should be able to keep most of their illegally obtained premium revenue.

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)

Met Life v. Glenn, U.S. Supreme Court, Case No. 06-923, (2008)
No. B175073, Court of Appeal, State of California, 2^nd Appellate District
Issue: Conflict of interest by ERISA plan administrators who both evaluate and pay or deny disupted claims
United Policyholders' brief addressed the first question certified for review by the United States Supreme Court: "Whether an administrator that both evaluates and pays claims under a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., is operating under a conflict of interest that must be weighed on judicial review of a benefit determination."

The current regime of ERISA benefit adjudication under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review consists of no more than a lenient "administrative" review without any opportunity for trial proceedings or even the taking of discovery absent a preliminary showing that an actual conflict infected the claim determination. See, e.g., Semien v. Life Insurance Co. of North America, 436 F.3d 805 (7th Cir.); cert. denied 127 S. Ct. 53 (2006). That manner of adjudication, coupled with the limited remedies available under ERISA, enhances the danger of conflicted plan administrators' misbehavior. UP argues that the Court should hold that when the insurer of employee benefits both determines the eligibility to receive benefits and is responsible for paying the benefits out of its own funds, a conflict exists that must be factored into the deference, if any, to be accorded the benefit claim determination.

United Policyholders brief was prepared pro bono by Mark DeBofsky of the Chicago firm of Daley, DeBofsky and Bryant. It was submitted jointly on behalf of the National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA). Pacific Palisades policyholder/ERISA attorney Ron Dean represented NELA and worked in conjunction with Mark on the brief.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (148K pdf)

Metz, John v. Superior Court of California, (2004)
No. B175073, Court of Appeal, State of California, 2^nd 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)

Michael Penzer, etc. vs. Transportation Insurance Company, (2008)
Supreme Court of Florida, Case No.: SC08-2068, Lower Court Case No.: 07-13827-FF.
Issue: UP argued that insurance companies have a duty to defend violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) under a CGL policy's "advertising injury" clause even when the facsimile transmission does not disseminate private information. Despite the absence of private information, an unsolicited facsimile arguably can still constitute an unwarranted intrusion and violation of one's right to privacy and activate the insurer's defense obligation. This brief was written for United Policyholders pro bono by Jane A. Horne in Anderson, Kill and Olick's New York offices. The Florida firm of VerPloeg & Lumpkin (also UP sponsors) assisted as local counsel.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.2MB pdf)
Favorable coverage opinion by FL. Supreme Court (1.1MB 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

Morrill and The Estate of John Prestiss v.Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company, (2008)
In the Court of Appeals, State of Georgia. Case No. A08A1391.
Issue: Insurer attempted to apply contractual one year statute of limitations in contravention of the public policy of Georgia, as established by statute and precedent allowing policyholders two years from the date of loss to file suit. The trial court erred by (1) applying the time ?|limitation provision to a liability claim that is no subject to this provision, (2) ignoring current insurance laws, regulations, and public policy, and (3) refusing to let a jury decide whether estoppel and waiver apply in this case.

This amicus brief was prepared for United Policyholders pro bono by Timothy P. Law.

Morris, Martin v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, (2003)
No. G030567, 4^th 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.

Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (2009) ?|Cal.Rptr.3d---, 2009 WL 197560, (Jan. 29, 2008)
Supreme Court Case No. S153846
Issue: Petition for Rehearing urging the Court to revisit it's decision holding that the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1770 e seg ("CLRA") does not authorize peremptory challenges to provisions in an agreement to foreclose the public civil justice system (e.g., through arbitration) and which are unconscionable under California law. This decision clearly ignores the plain language of the statute and the breadth of all its provisions and should be substantially modified. The Opinion eviscerated the language and scope of the CLRA, despite the statute's plain language and its express command that is provisions be viewed liberally. Joining United Policyholders in urging the Court to grant a rehearing was the Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Action, Consumer Watchdog, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, The National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and Public Citizen.
This letter was written pro bono for United Policyholders by James C. Sturdevant

Motiva Enterprises, LLC v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. etc., (2005)
Case No. 05-20139, USCA, 5^th 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, 2^nd 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)

Nieto, Julie v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company,, (2010)
California Supreme Court, Case No. B214669.
Issue: Post Claims Underwriting: Letter Brief in Support of Petition for Review. If the Court of Appeal decision cannot be reconciled with California public policy and is inconsistent with all other California authority, which has strongly condemned unlawful post claims underwriting. This brief was written pro bono for United Policyholders by Alice J. Wolfson

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)

Panasia Estates, Inc. v. Hudson Insurance Company and UTC Risk Management Services, Inc., (2009)
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division—First Department, New York County Clerk’s Index No. 602472/05.
Issue: The Decision and Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, should be reversed to the limited extent that it implicitly requires Plaintiff to prove bad faith in order to recover consequential damages. This brief was written pro bono for United Policyholders by John G. Nevius, Esq.

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)

Pendergest-Holt, Laura, Stanford, R. Allen, Lopez, Gilbert Jr. and Kuhrt, Mark v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London and Arch Specialty Insurance Company, (2010)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Texas). Case No. 10-20069.
Issue: This case involves the application of the "eight corners" rule to an insurers duty to advance defense costs in a D&O context. UP presented arguments to the court to show how the carriers position would defeat the purpose of D&O coverage. UP's brief was written pro bono by John Berringer, Timothy P. Law, Jill N. Averett and John N. Ellison of Reed Smith, LLP.
Download Amicus Summary ( 232K 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)

Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. vs. Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., (2009)
Supreme Court of Ohio, Case No. 2009-0104
Issue: UP joined with the Ohio Manufacturers Association (OMA), a statewide association that employs the majority of the 610,000 men and women that work in manufacturing in the state of Ohio. Together UP and OMA presented the policyholder's perspective that when a claim triggers multiple policies, the policyholder can choose to recover under any of its policies providing coverage for all sums that it was legally obligated to pay, up to the policy limits. UP's brief was drafted pro bono by a team that included the Cleveland firm of Brouse McDowell.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (7MB pdf)

Perez v. Fire Insurance Exchange, (2005)
Civil No. F043931, Court of Appeal, 5^th 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.

QBE Insurance Corporation v. Chalfonte Condominium apartment Association, Inc, (2009)
Supreme Court of Florida, Case No: SC09-441, On Certified Questions from the United States Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit, Case Nos. 08-10009-HH, 08-11337-H.
Issue: This case concerns whether or not Florida law recognizes a claim for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing. Making an insurer accountable for causing additional damages that naturally flow from the breach of its mandated obligation of utmost good faith is good public policy and logically required. UP requests that the Court find that a claim for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing in the first party insurance context exists in Florida common law. Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders

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)

Randal D. Haworth, M.D. v. superior court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Real Party in Interest, Susan Amy Ossakow, (2009)
case #S165906
Issue:The law requiring neutral arbitrators, as well as sitting judges, should be required to disclose the facts and circumstances of a previous censure. The disclosure requirements for neutral arbitrators is critically important because it affects the ability of insurance consumers to obtain a fair and reasoned recovery of the policy benefits for which they have paid years of premiums. These decisions by arbitration panels go to the core of the insurer/insured relationship. The reputation of the judiciary—the perception of the public as to the honesty and integrity of the judicial process—is of utmost importance. It is not enough to simply mouth the standard. It is critical to enforce it
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (236KB 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 9^th 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, 3^rd 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)

Sigelman et al.vs. Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company,, (2008)
Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Case. No. D050783.
Issue: Letter Brief supporting petition for review. Malpractice insurer rescinded policy for alleged misrepresentation in the application. The policy had been in force for seventeen years. Trial court entered judgment in favor of the policyholder. The Appellate Court reversed.

Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. V. City of Desert Hot Springs et al., (2003)
Case No. 02-57082, 03-55394, Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals
Issue: Where an insurer chooses to draft an exclusion that does not clearly and unambiguously apply to a specific claim, it cannot argue, after the fact, for a contrary interpretation. Poor draftsmanship cannot support an insurer's argument for a narrow underwriting construction of coverage.

Simon v. Sao Paulo U.S. Holding Co., Inc., (2004)
Supreme Court of California, S121933, (See Johnson, Greg et al. v. Ford Motors.)
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (188K pdf)

Simon Wrecking Company Inc., et al. v. AIU Ins. Co. et al., (2007)
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 03-CV3231.
Issue: Interpretation of pollution exclusion clause. UP urged the Court to interpret the "sudden and accidental" exclusion in favor of coverage and should estop CNA (the defendant) from applying the exclusion in anyway that is inconsistent with its representation to the State Insurance regulators in 1970 when it was passed.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (3.6MB pdf)

State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. James and Cynthia Simmons, (1997)
No. D-4095 Supreme Court, Texas
Issue: UP brief supports Court of Appeals decision holding that (1) insurance company acted in bad faith; (2) the insurance company failed to show the policyholders burned their own home and (3) punitive damage award of two million was not excessive.

State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Curtis B. Campbell, et al., (2003)
No. 01-1289 Supreme Court of the United States
Issue: There should not be a bright line ratio between compensatory and punitive damages.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (232K pdf)

State of California v. Superior Court, (2006)
Fourth Appellate District, California, 146 Cal. App. 4^th 851.
Issue: Application of the "pollution Exclusion" in liability insurance policies, regarding allocation of burden of proof as between covered and non-covered issues; regulatory estoppel; (regulatory admissions).

State of California ex rel. Linda Nee and John Metz vs. Unum Provident Corporation, et al.
in the Court of Appeal of the State of California. Second Appellate District, Division Five, Case No. B183487
Issue: Amicus brief filed jointly in this case by UP and the Consumer Attorneys of California. Supports the right of private citizens to bring qui tam actions seeking redress for unfair claim practices against insurance companies.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders et al. (244K pdf)

State of California v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, Allstate, (2007)
Supreme Court of California, Docket No. S149988
Issue: Pollution Exclusion.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders et al in the CA. Supreme Court (450K pdf)
Read the CA. Supreme Court’s opinion adopting the position UP advocated (212K pdf) 
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders et al in the CA. Court of Appeal (80K pdf)

State of West Virginia v. Madden, (2004)
Issue: When crime/fraud exception can be invoked, insurer cannot shield evidence from insured on grounds of attorney/client privilege. The crime fraud exception is essential in deterring corporate misconduct. The assertion of defenses to an insurance bad faith claim is manifestly sufficient to trigger the exception.

State of Wyoming v. Federated Services Insurance, (1999)
No. 98-8096 Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, United States
Issue: Standing under Wyoming Water pollution statute to bring direct actions against insurer.

St. Joe Minerals Corporation v. Zurich Insurance, (1999)
Fourth Appellate District, California
Issue: Clean-up costs as damages; prp letters as suits: Duty to Defend.

St. Paul Fire & Marine v. McCormik & Baxter Creosoting Company, (1999)
Supreme Court of Oregon
Issue: Polluter's exclusion and use of extrinsic evidence to prove coverage.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders(372K pdf)

Stone v. Continental Insurance Company, (1996)
No. 95-11376 Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 2nd Department, New York
Issue: Tutorial: insurance nullification; insurance companies as fiduciaries; post-loss underwriting; Insurance as a defective product.

Stonewall Insurance Company v. Asbestos Claims Management Corporation, (1995)
No. 93-7314 Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, United States
Issue: Allocation; quasi-estoppel.

Strandley v. CAN Ins. Co., (March, 1999)
Washington State Supreme Court
Issue: Statute of limitations for malicious prosecution, pooling.

Sunbeam Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, (1998)
No. 1122 PG97 Superior Court, Pennsylvania
Issue: Polluter's exclusion; estoppel; insured's reasonable expectations of coverage.

Superior Dispatch v. Insurance Corporation of New York, (2009)
Case No. B204878, Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, Appeal from Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. NC 037014.
Issue: The insurer's position in this appeal is that, despite its violation of Sections 2695.4 and 2695.7 of the Cal. Code of Regulations, it should not be estopped to assert the contractual limitations period. The plain meaning of the regulations commands an insurer to give the claimant (first or third party) notice of time limits that apply to the claim. The violations of the regulations occur when the insurer denies the claim but chooses not to inform the claimant about the applicable time limits. An insured's act of consulting a lawyer months later does not reverse the violation or relieve the insurer of the consequence of the violation. Equity, fairness and plain-dealing will not be fostered if the regulations are interpreted to render violations retroactively meaningless if the insured fortuitously consults an attorney after denial of the claim.

Download Brief Amicus Superior Dispatch of United Policyholders (pdf)  

Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. US Fidelity & Guaranty, (2004)
SC04-771, Supreme Court of Florida
Issue: UP requests Court affirm that the undefined insurance policy phrase "arising out of" is ambiguous and should be construed in favor of coverage.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (4.1MB pdf)

Texas Assoc. of Counties Government Risk Management Pool v. Matagorda County, (1999)
No. 98-0968 Supreme Court, Texas
Issue: The Texas Court should not adopt the anti-policyholder holdings of Buss v. Transamerica Co. 939 P.2d 766 (1977) and should not be swayed by Insurance company argument that the holding is sweeping the country.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (4.3MB pdf)

TIG Insurance Company v. Gary Smolker, (1998)
No. BC 173952 Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, California
Issue: Tutorial: Markham quotes; duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Timmiss v. Kaiser, (2005)
Appellate Court No. ID Civil No. A102962, California Supreme Court
Issue: Letter Brief supporting petition to review. Health plans function as health insurers. If the evidence shows that insurers are requiring Policyholders to alter medications in order to take the proper dosage.Insurers are engaging in unfair business practices and are defeating the reasonable expectations of their insureds. The Court system must provide redress for this wrong.
Download Amicus Letter Brief of United Policyholders (1.4MB pdf)

Town of Harrison and Village of Harrison v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. Pittsburgh, PA , (1996)
No. 13167/92 Court of Appeals, State of New York
Issue: Absolute "polluter's exclusion"; fiduciary duty; duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Tran, Ngoc M., dba Shing Fat Supermarket v. Farmers Group, Truck Insurance Exchange, (2003)
No. A093437 Court of Appeals, First Appellate District Div. 3, California
Issue: Farmers should not be able to avoid liability by claiming that it only serves as "attorney in fact."
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (60K pdf)

Travelers Casualty and Surety Co v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, (2001)
No. 2000-2300 Court of Appeals, State of New York
Issue: Reinsurance companies should not be free from oversight and regulation. Lloyds should not be allowed to engage in "hindsight" underwriting to change "loss" to "occurrence" and to insert a "proximate cause" requirement.

Travelers Casualty and Surety the Company, et. al. (appellants/Defendants) v. United States Filter Corporation, (2006)
Case No. 49A02-064-CV-00289, Indiana Court of Appeals
Issue: This case involves occurrence-based insurance policies that the various insurance company defendants (collectively, the "Insurers") sold to U.S. Filter's predecessor, which require that the Insurers defend and indemnify U.S. Filter for losses that occurred prior to U.S. Filter's succession to the policy.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.8MB pdf)
July 2007 Opinion by Indiana Court of Appeals (122k pdf)

TRB Investments v. Fireman's Fund, (2006)
Supreme Court of California, Case No. F045816
Issue: The Court's interpretation of the "under construction" exception to the exclusion to apply only to the new construction of a building and not to the renovation of an existing building violates California law in numerous ways.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3.3MB pdf)
CA. Supreme Court Opinion (158K pdf document)
UP Amicus brief contributes to policyholder victory (article)
UP helps sway CA Supreme Court re: vacancy exclusion (article)

Trinity Universal Insurance Company v. Nicole Cowan, (1996)
No. 95-1160 State Supreme Court, Texas
Issue: Tutorial: insurance lore; duty of good faith and fair dealing continues through litigation; occurrences; lawyers as underwriters; insurance company's duty to disclose.

Tri-Star Lodging, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company, (2006)
Case No. 06-13989-HH, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Florida
Issue: The right to a jury trial as it applies to a claim of first-party breach of contract. The decision of the lower court should be reversed as an assault on the right to jury trial.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.6MB pdf)

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court of California, (1998)
Civ. No. B117294, Court of Appeals, California, No. BC090825, c/w BC135685
Issue: tutorial: contract v. tort; plain meaning as ordinary and popular meaning; legally obligate

John and Clare Tuepker v. State Farm Fire and Casualty, (2007)
Case Nos. 06-61075 and 06-61076, United States District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, Southern District
Issue: Katrina case involving the "anti-concurrent clause" language in a State Farm policy and the burden of proof regarding exclusions. UP requested that the Court uphold the District Court's opinion finding that the "anti-concurent causation" lead-in clause does not preclude coverage and imposing the burden on State Farm to prove that the applicability of an exclusion.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (88K pdf)
Download State Farm brief (3.8MB pdf)
Download Policyholder counsel's brief (1.6MB pdf)

Uhrich v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., (2003)
No. S117639, California Supreme Court
Issue: letter brief: A personal liability insurer cannot promise to defend and pay claims for enumerated intentional torts such as false arrest, false imprisonment, defamation, or invasion of privacy and then deny coverage because the inherently intentional quality of the insured's act violates the policy requirement that the personal injury offense result from an "accident."
Download Amicus Letter Brief of United Policyholders (888K pdf)

Uniguard Insurance Co. v. The City of Lodi, California, et al., (1999)
No. 99-15802, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit, California
Issue: Tutorial: Insurance Companies are fiduciaries.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3.9MB pdf)

United PolicyHolders v. Hon. Gregory Serio, NY State Insurance Dept., (2002)
No. 110971101 Sup Ct., New York Appellate Div. First Dept
Issue:Writ of Mandamus. UP requested that the New York State Insurance Department revoke, cancel and annul the de facto license of Equitas to do business in New York State.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (316K pdf)

U.S. Test, Inc and Bobby Cobb v. N.D.E. Environmental Corp and United Coastal Insurance, (1999)
No. 99-1087 Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, United States
Issue: addresses the scope of "advertising injury" coverage for inducements to infringe a patent in light of 28 U.S.C. section 271(a). The Court erred in relying on the absence of the word "patent" with the offenses of "infringement of copyright, title, or slogan" to exclude coverage for an inducement to infringe a patent claim arising under the code section which is based on the insured's advertising activities.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (136K pdf)

U.S. Underwriters Insurance Co. v. City Club Hotel, LLC, (2004)
Court of Appeals, State of NY, #02- CV-07379NRB
Issue: In a case in which an insurance company has brought a declaratory judgment action to determine that it does not have policy obligations but defended in the underlying suit, the insured that prevails in the dec. relief action should be awarded attorney's fees for defending that action.

United States of America v. John Brennan, (1997)
No. 97-1440 (L) 97-1441 Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, United States
Issue: Tutorial for Court: Fiduciary duty; "crying wolf"; purpose of insurance is to "insure"; the "sophisticated policyholder"; contra preferendum; public service nature of insurance.

United States Fidelity and Guarantee Co. vs. United States Sports Specialty Association, (2010)
Utah Supreme Court, 20090657-SC
Issue: Insurer's right to reimbursement. In this case, UP briefed the issues of: 1) whether an insurer has a right to reimbursement or restitution against an insured (of amounts paid in settlement) 2) Whether an insurer has a right to reimbursement or restitution against an insured (for settlements), and whether there are any prerequisites to receiving such a right 3) If such a right does exist, whether an insurer’s payment in excess of a policy’s limit impacts any such right. UP's brief was written pro bono by William G. Passannante, Esq. and Marc Ladd, Esq. of Anderson Kill & Olick, PC. Of Counsel: Amy Bach, Esq.

Vandenberg, John B. v. Superior Court, State of California, (1999)
21 California 4th p.815
Issue: A coverage determination for property damage losses depends on the property itself and the nature of the risk causing the injury. Decision pertains to Commercial General Liability Policies

Village of Northridge Homeowners Association vs. State Farm Fire & Casualty, et al., (2008)
In the California State Supreme Court, Case. No. S161008, Appellate District, Civil No. B188718.
Issue: The question presented by the case is the following: After settling a party claim by accepting money from and executing a release of the insurer, may an insured sue the insurer for fraud in inducing the settlement and seek to avoid the release without returning the money the insurer paid? In negotiating the settlement of not only the litigation, but the policy claims as well, State Farm had the duty to tell Village Northridge of the true policy limits. Anything short of that violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing, its obligations under section 790. 03(h) (1) and the mandates of section 2695.4(a). Because State Farm violated those mandates, it cannot be allowed to hamstring its insureds by asserting the settlement agreement as a bar to the insured's fraud claim. Although California's public policy of enforcing settlement agreements is important, it is not inviolate. Where as here, an insurer's fraud in procuring a settlement-in violation of it duty of good faith and fair dealing, and in violation of statutory mandates, the public policy supporting enforcement of settlements must give way to the policy of holding insurers responsible for their contractual obligations. This brief was written pro bono for United Policyholders by Sharon J. Arkin. Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (140K PDF)

Vu v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., (2001)
California Supreme Court, Case No. S078271
Issue: Statue of Limitations, Property damage cases.

Wagner v. Eire Ins., (2003)
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Issue: Gasoline station owner's reasonable expectation of coverage for damage caused by gasoline should control.

Watanabe v. Blue Shield,, (2008)
State Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 2nd Civ No.B 195725 BC (324008)
Issue: Blue Shield of California tried to shield itself from bad faith liability by claiming that Maria WatanabeA^'s benefits were denied by a medical group which had a contract with Blue Shield. But California law is clear: an insurer cannot delegate its implied covenant duties. The Know-Keene Act does not immunize insurance companies from bad faith liability. To allow an insurer to delegate its implied covenant obligations would effectively allow insurers to eliminate its bad faith liability. Absent the threat o f bad faith liability, an insurer has little incentive to afford policy benefits.
This brief was written pro bono for United Policyholders by Daniel J. Koes.
Download Amicus Letter Brief of United Policyholders (136K pdf)

Waters v. United States Automobile Association, (1996)
No. BC 68468 Supreme Court, San Francisco, California
Issue: Insurers duties re: property damage claims and insureds' right to recover for emotional distress caused by bad faith conduct.

Watts Industries, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., (2004)
Case No. B162067 (LASC Case No. 245144 consolidated with Case No. BC 251718)
Issue: Insurer must offer a defense if there is a potential for coverage of any part of underlying claim.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (123K pdf)

Weiss v. UnumProvident, (2005)
3^rd Circuit, Philadelphia
Issue: Does ERISA preempt RICO. UP argued that the Supreme Court has held that RICO enforcement does not conflict with ERISA or the McCarran-Ferguson Act and that UnumProvident's history of reprehensible bad faith claim handling, evidenced by governmental sanctions and numerous court decisions, requires that Plaintiffs be allowed their day in court.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders et al (260K pdf)
Read the Court Opinion (168K pdf)

West American Insurance Company v. Mark R. Freeman, (1996)
No. S049306 State Supreme Court, California
Issue: Insurance Company's duty of good faith and fair dealing with its policyholder should continue into litigation and should not be limited to the circumstances surrounding the insurance coverage litigation.

Western Alliance Insurance Company v. Jarnail Singh Gill, (1997)
No. 07506 Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts
Issue: Absolute polluter's exclusion; IELA.

Whitehead, Carrie and State Farm Auto Mobile v. American Coachworks, Inc., (2002)
No. 2002-CA-0027 Court of Appeals, 1^st Circuit, State of Louisana
Issue: Auto owners and insurance consumers need protection under their insurance policies that work performed on damaged vehicles by body repair shops, at the request of vehicle owners and in conformance with the direction provided by insurance companies of the vehicles, will be covered expenses according to the insurance policy.

Williams et al. v. State farm Fire and Casualty Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, and Louisiana Property Insurance Corporation, (2007)
Class Action. Companion case to Landry et al. v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, (2007)
Case No. 07-00247-CA, Case No. 06-2919, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (see Berthelot above).
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.

Willow Inn, Inc. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance Co., (2004)
USCA No. 03-2837, 3^rd Circuit
Issue: A punitive damage award that exceeds the Campbell ratio of 9:1 does not violate substantive due process.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.8MB pdf)
Read the Court's opinion

Wixon v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, (1996)
Case No. A068078, California Court of Appeal, First District
Issue: Opposition to request for depublication. Calculation of deductible in an earthquake claim.

Zilisch, Kimberly K. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (2000)
No. CV-98-0535-PR Supreme Court, Arizona
Issue: UP challenged the "fairly debatable" standard as the standard to be used for determining a bad faith denial of coverage. "Fairly debatable" is a standard that favors insurance companies.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (6MB pdf)