United Policyholders Amicus Project
Amicus Curiae Briefs
Back To Amicus Project Home
AAA DisposalSystems, Inc. and BFI Waste v. Aetna, (2004)
Supreme Court of Illinois
Issue: Late notice; all sums; joint and several; allocation.
A-One Oil Company v. The Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, (1998)
No. 95-4397 Court of Appeals, State of New York
Issue: Insurance company should not be able to avoid its duty to
defend and indemnify based on a pollution exclusion when damage sustained was
result of replacement of an old heater in a private residence. Exclusion, as
applied does not meet reasonable expectations of insured.
Advance Watch Company, LTD v. Kemper National Insurance Company, (1996)
No. 95-1367/1387 Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, Michigan
Issue: Trademark infringement claims should be covered under
standard form advertising injury policy.
Aerojet-General Corporation v. Transport Indemnity Insurance Company, (1997)
17 California 4th 38
Issue: Insurance companies should not be allowed to profit from
inconsistent coverage positions. / Allocation.
Aetna Health, Inc. v. Juan Davila, (2004)
Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 02-1845 & 03-83
Issue: ERISA not intended to preempt state laws regulating insurance
Outcome: U.S.Supreme Court holds, once again, that ERISA preempts everything.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (209K pdf)
2005 Law Journal Commentary (128K pdf)
AICCO, Inc. v. INA Financial Corporation, (2001)
No. 308869 Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, Division 3, California
Issue: An insurance company cannot avoid coverage in a class
policies simply restructuring itself and assigning its liabilities to another
company without first obtaining the consent of its policyholders.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (7.4MB pdf)
Aircraft Holdings, L.L.C. vs. XL Specialty Insurance Company, (2006)
Case No. SC06-1303, Florida Supreme Court
Issue: In a first-party action brought pursuant to Section 624.155, the
attorney-client privilege does not bar production of attorney-client
communications generated during the claim investigation and underlying coverage
action which are relevant to the issue of whether the company evaluated the
claim in good faith. Attorney-client privilege cannot act as a shield for
insurer's bad faith conduct.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (228K pdf)
AllAmerica Financial Corporation, SMA Financial Corporation at al., (2007)
Supreme Court for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Case No. SJC-09834.
Issue: The Court requested submission of an amicus curiae
brief on the issue of Òwhether 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
ÒYES.Ó Because Lloyd's policy expressly agreed to ÒsubjectÓ itself to the
primary's insurer's control of the defense and settlement, it is bound by all
good faith determinations made in the exercise of that control, including all
decisions leading to the exhaustion of the primary limits.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.2 MB pdf)
Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Insurance Company & Paul Cobb v. Joanquin Ruiz
and Paulina Ruiz, (2001)
SC-01-893 Supreme Court of Florida
Issue: Policyholder's should be able to obtain copies of insurer's claim files in
litigation involving coverage dispute. /duty of good faith and fair dealing.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (96K pdf)
Allstate v. Pincheira, (2002)
See Pincheira below.
Issue: Court should allow discovery of internal documents pertaining to manner of
handling claims (claims Core Process Redesign).
American Games, Inc. v. Trade Products, Inc.
No. 97-35275 Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, United States
American Home Assurance Company v. International Insurance Co & National Casualty Co., (1997)
No. 12679/91,20741/90 Court of Appeals, State of New York
Issue: late notice—notice prejudice rule.
American Insurance Assn. v. Garamendi, (2004)
California Court of Appeals, 3rd Appellate District, No. 045000
Issue: Attempt to stop insurer's from engaging in the practice know as "Use it and
lose it."
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (116K pdf)
Read the Court's opinion (72K doc)
Read press statement by Commissioner Garamendi
Read article in the SF Chronicle
Read article in the NY Times (48K pdf)
Read UP's Depublication Request (320K pdf)
American Names Association Inc. v. New York State Department of Insurance, (2002)
Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Issue: The need for a foreign insurer (Lloyds) to be licensed in New York State.
Anderson, Thomas v. Allstate Insurance Company, (2001)
No. 01-15145 U.S.
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Issue: Insurer cannot use toxic mold protection act to shield
itself from bad faith liability in a claim regarding remediation of mold.
/thorough investigation/legal treatises.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (5.2MB pdf)
Anthoine et al v. Lord, Bissell & Brook et al., (2001)
No. 102420/99 Supreme Court of New York
Issue: plaintiffs should not be barred from suing lawyers for
serious unlawful conduct while representing them even though at the time the
plaintiffs did not know they were being represented. Duty of Lloyd's law firm;
Statute of Limitations; tolling; ethical and fiduciary duty.
AstenJohnson Inc., v. Columbia Casualty Co. and Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies, (2008)
Case No. 07-2305, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Issue: Asbestos exclusion. Policyholders should have the right to select the policies under which they seek coverage, without fear of prejudice to any Laches or Course of Performance Argument. Courts should not hamstring a policyholder's efforts to obtain evidence of custom and usage in the insurance industry, particularly where evidence regarding trade usage provides the basis for interpreting the language in the policy. It is essential that policyholders have the opportunity to take broad discovery on matters relating to custom and usage in the insurance industry. Insurance companies should not be allowed to adopt an interpretation that renders a policy provision meaningless.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (5.4MB pdf)
Avery, Michael E. et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (2005)
No. 97-L-114 Supreme Court of Illinois
Issue: Insurance Company should not be able to use after market parts when policy calls
for restoring vehicle to pre-loss condition; unfair practices;
McCarran-Ferguson Act.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.2MB pdf)
Julian Banerji v. John Hancock Life Insurance and Unum Provident, (2004)
Mass Supreme Court
Issue: Unwritten exclusions; breach of contract; insurance
nullification.
Ballard v. Farmers Insurance Group, (2002)
Texas Court of Appeals
Issue: Insurance nullification by litigation; bad faith.
Barber, James v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, (2004)
No. 03-4363, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Issue: ERISA should not preempt state insurance laws.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.5MB pdf)
Basich v. Allstate Ins. Co. et al., (2001)
California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, Division 3, Case No. B132634, LASC Case No. BC 167194
Issue: Statue of Limitations-equitable estoppel.
Baugh Construction Company v. Granite State Insurance Company, (1997)
No. C023071 Court of Appeals, 3rd Appellate District, California
Issue: Under New Jersey law, the obligation of good faith and fair dealing extends to the assertion, settlement and litigation of contract claims
Belt Painting v. TIG, (2003)
No. 18328100, State of New York
Issue: New York State law should limit the application of ISO's standard-form
pollution exclusions to industrial pollution of the environment and it should
not be applied to avoid liability for routine premise/operations claims.
Benoy Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, (1996)
No. 96-0536 Appellate Court, 1st District, 1st Division, Illinois
Issue: Loss Mitigation; Indemnity v. Defense; PRP letters as
suits
Berthelot etal. v. Boh Brothers Construction Co. L.L.C. et al., (2007)
Class Action, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Civil Action No. 05-4182.
This document relates to: 05-6323 "K" (2) Vanderbrook.
Issue: The anti-concurrent causation language
upon which Defendants rely has already been deemed ambiguous as a matter of law
by another Federal Court addressing similar arguments raised by Defendants. Tuepker
v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2006 WL 1442489 (S. D. Miss.). Furthermore,
Defendants' position with regard to this language is in complete derogation of
the "efficient proximate cause" doctrine, which has been adopted by the
Louisiana Supreme Court and provides that a policyholder is entitled to
coverage if a covered peril was the proximate or efficient cause of the loss or
damage, notwithstanding that other
excluded or non-covered perils contributed to the damage.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.3MB pdf)
Bi-Economy Market, Inc., v. Harleysville Insurance Co. Of New York, (2007)
Case No. CA 06-00847, Court
of Appeals, New York State.
Issue: The policyholder sought consequential damages
for the loss of its business as a result of the insurance company's refusal to
make timely payment. The trial court refused to award
consequential damages. United Policyholders argued that such damages are
routinely awarded in breach of contract cases, including cases involving breach
of an insurance policy, and that under the venerable Hadley v.
Baxendale decision, such damages were foreseeable given the nature of
the policy at issue. Moreover, even though the consequential loss
exclusion barred coverage for certain losses, it did not bar a court
from imposing the remedy of consequential damages.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.5MB pdf)
Download Brief in opposition to insurance company amici (7.2MB pdf)
Read the Court’s Decision (36K pdf)
Birth Center v. St Paul Companies, Inc., (2000)
No. 25, 26, 27 & 28, Supreme Court, Pennsylvania
Issue: Payment of an excess verdict does not extinguish the
insurer's bad faith refusal to settle under Pennsylvania law.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (6.8MB pdf)
Bischel v. Fire Insurance Exchange, (1992)
Issue: Coverage for code upgrades.
Blue Ridge v. Jacobsen, (2001)
25 Cal. 4th 489
Issue: Letter Brief requesting rehearing—scope of duty to
defend.
Board of Directors Metro Wastewater v. Nat'l Union Fire, (2004)
Appellate Court-Illinois
Issue: Can insurer deny claim based on late notice without showing
of prejudice.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1MB pdf)
Board of Education of Township High School District No. 211 v. International Ins. Co., (1996)
No. 98-0084, Appellate Court of Illinois, 1st Judicial District, Third Division
Issue: All Risk Policies.
Boston Gas v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, et. Al., (2007)
United States Court of Appeals, First
District, Mass. Case No. 07-1452
Issue: Coverage for continuous injury when multiple policies cover the loss. "all
sums" versus allocation of loss. The Court should adopt the position that
joint and several liability should be imposed against insurance companies for
damages arising from an ongoing injury. The only way the policyholder can
enjoy the security it purchased with each policy is if the policyholder can collect
the full amount of indemnity that is due from any insurer whose coverage is
triggered.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.1MB pdf)
Buell Industries, Inc. V. Greater Mutual New York Insurance Co., (2001)
No. SC 16464 Supreme Court, Connecticut
Issue: Under the Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, (CERCLA) payments for environmental remediation or "clean up"
costs constitutes "damages" and should be compensable under liability insurance
policies.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3.6MB pdf)
Buss v. Superior Court State of California, County of Los Angeles, (1997)
No. S052844
Supreme Court, California
Issue: Under California law an insurer has a duty to defend the
entire case as long as there is a potential for coverage of even one claim.
Insurer can request an allocation of costs after defense is complete.
Allocation—covered vs. uncovered.
California Auto Insurance Company v. Hogan, (2004)
S120950, Supreme Court of California
Issue: California motor vehicle insurance provides coverage for
injuries bearing almost any causal relationship to the vehicle.
California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. v. California Department of Managed Care et al., (2002)
No. C041091 3rd District Court of Appeal, California
Issue: Writ of Mandate requiring California Dept. of Managed Health Care to obey and
enforce Health & Safety Code section 137.30(h) (Knox-Keene Act). Private
right of enforcement. Policyholders should be able to obtain documents from
the CDMHC in connection with their appeal of an HMO denial to ensure that
policyholder's grievances are thoroughly reviewed on a complete factual record
and provide a reasoned explanation for the final disposition of policyholders'
grievances.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3.6MB pdf)
California Medical Association v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California, (2002)
No. S103631 Supreme Court, California
Issue: Health Plans play the same function as health insurers and
should be held to the same standards. Policyholders reasonably expect adequate
payment by health plans for their healthcare. Because inadequate payment to
physicians could compromise the quality of healthcare, underfunding
intermediaries and not paying physicians violates the state's unfair
competition laws.
Callas Enterprises v. The Travelers Indemnity Company of America, (1999)
No. 98-3802 Court of Appeals, 8th District, United States
Issue: Insurers are obligated to pay defense costs for tortuous
allegations in a complaint where distinct claims for an intellectual property
tort is alleged along with a breach of contract claim.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (188K pdf)
Campbell v. State Farm, (2003) (cf. UP Newsletter article)
(No. 01-1289) 538 U.S. 408.
Issue: An award of punitive damages should be linked to reprehensibility of conduct.
Court should not establish a bright line ratio.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (223K pdf)
Carrington, Harold J. vs. Superior Court of CA, (2003)
Case No. 104694, CA Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate District, Division 4
Issue: Insurer should not be able to deny long term care policy
years later on basis of alleged misrepresentation on application where insured
now has Alzheimer's. (Post claims underwriting).
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company, (1998)
No. 44303 Supreme Court, New Jersey
Issue: trigger of coverage; all sums; estoppel; joint & several liability.
Cassim, Fareed v. Allstate Insurance Company, (2004)
No. S109711 Supreme Court of California
Issue: Insureds should have the right to recover attorney's fees incurred to recover
unpaid benefits.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (396K pdf)
Cello-Foil Products, Inc. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company, (1997)
No. 104107, 105981, 106678 Supreme Court, Michigan
Issue: In a policy involving environmental damage which actually
took place over many years and spanning multiple insurance policy periods,
coverage should not be limited only to insurance policies in effect at the time
the property damage is discovered or "first manifests."
Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Assoc v. Associated International Insurance, (2001)
B137320 2nd Appellate Division #3, Court of Appeal of California
Issue: Insurance companies should not be allowed to escape
liability simply by hiring an expert. As a matter of law, the insurance
company must conduct a fair and thorough investigation or whether or not it has
acted in bad faith is a question of fact, and not law.
Chauvin v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al., (2006)
Eastern District Louisiana. Civil Action 05-6454 c/w 06-0177.
Issue: Katrina case. The Court must reject State Farm's untenable and unsupported suggested
interpretation of the VPL which, in effect, seeks to render the VPL
inapplicable to situations where a covered peril and a non-covered peril were
each involved in the total loss to a covered property. The anti-concurrent
causation language upon which State Farm relied in connection with its
interpretation has already been deemed ambiguous as a matter of law by another
Federal Court addressing similar arguments raised by State Farm. Tuepker,
2006 WL 1442489 at * 5.Interpretation
of water damage exclusions in property policies and Louisiana's "Valued Policy
Law."
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.3MB pdf)
Christopher DePasquale v. Security Mutual Life Insurance Co. of NY, (2001)
No. 122062/02, Supreme Court of New York
Issue: Claims handling philosophy; bad faith; continuing duty of
good faith; SLAPP suits; fiduciary; reverse bad faith.
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.
Cook, Heidi Sue v. American States Insurance Company, (1997)
No. 35941-0-1 Supreme Court, Washington
Issue: Absolute Pollution Exclusion
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)
Crownover et al., v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. et al., (2002)
Nevada Supreme
Court, Case No. 40234
Issue: Duty to Defend.
Culhane and Turbak v. Western National Mutual, (2005)
Supreme Court South Dakota
Issue: Automobile insurance issues.
Jean Cundiff v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, (2007)
Supreme Court of Arizona, No. CV-07-0057-PR, Court of Appeals No. 2 CA-CV 2005-0209, 213 Ariz. 541, 145 P. 3d
638 (App. 2006)
Issue: Under Arizona law, an insurer should not be allowed to use the "off-set"
clause in the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in order to reduce the
amount of UIM benefits paid to its policyholder by the amount of benefits the
policyholder received from a workers' compensation insurer.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (88K pdf)
Download Brief Supplemental Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (68K pdf)
Dana Corp. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et al., (1997)
No. 17171-6-II, Court of
Appeals, Indiana, 690 N.E. 2nd
Issue: Coverage for environmental liabilities.
Dart Industries v. Commercial Insurance Co., (2000)
No. S096518 State Supreme Court, California
Issue: Opposing a Court of Appeal Decision, UP urged that
insureds (including holocaust victims) who do not have copies of their original
policies be allowed to offer "secondary evidence" of lost documents to prove
the existence of the policies themselves.
Delgado v Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California (2008)
Case No. s15529, Supreme Court of California.
Issue: This case concerns the proper scope of an insurer's duty to defend its insured in circumstances indicating that the insured may have acted in self-defense. United Policyholders takes the position that whenever the lawsuit contains factual allegations or extrinsic evidence from which the insurer can infer that the insured may have acted under the apprehension, even if erroneous, that he or she may be in danger, the insurer has a duty to defend.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.6MB pdf)
Davaloo v. State Farm Insurance Company, (2005)
37 Cal. Rptr. 3rd 528. 2nd App. Dist.
Issue: The Davaloo opinion is a pleading case arising out of a property insurance dispute. The
opinion concerns whether or not an original complaint contained sufficient
factual allegations such that an amended complaint would timely relate back.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (104K pdf)
Download Exhibit A to UP Amicus Brief (52K pdf)
Download Exhibit B to UP Amicus Brief (444K pdf)
Download Exhibit C to UP Amicus Brief (852K pdf)
DeBruyn v.Superior Court (Farmers Group, Inc.), (2008)
Supreme Court of California, Case No. S161000. Petition for Review.
Issue: DeBruyn presents a critical issue regarding the rule of efficient proximate cause and Insurance code section 530 in the aftermath of this Court's opinion in Julien v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company (2005) 35 Cal.4th 747. It is important for this Court to grant the petition for review to affirm that an insurer cannot contract around Insurance Code section 530 and to clarify the confusion in the lower courts about the narrow application of this Court's holding in Julien.
Download Petition for Review (177K pdf)
This Petition for Review was written pro bono for United Policyholders jointly by Denise Jarman and Joel Westbrook.
Deni Associates of Florida v. State Farm, (1998)
Supreme Court
Issue: Ambiguity; absolute polluter's exclusion; reasonable
expectations of coverage.
Denmark v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, (2006)
First District, Case No. 05-2877. Mass.
Issue: Anti-consumer and anti-policyholder affects of denying
coverage in disability cases involving both a disease that is difficult to
document objectively and an overwhelming amount of medical evidence that favors
a finding of complete disability. Long term care insurance companies are
sometimes permitted too much discretion under the "arbitrary and
capricious" standard of review that courts apply in reviewing coverage
denials under ERISA.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.5MB pdf)
Download Brief Amicus Curiae Motion of United Policyholders (528K pdf)
Dipasquale v. Security Mutual Life Ins. Co., (2001)
No. 601780/98, Supreme Court of NY
Issue: Policyholders are entitled to know when an insurance
company provides financial incentives to deny claims and to know when their
confidential information is provided to Third Party Administrators.
The Downey Venture v. LMI Insurance Company, (1997)
Civ. No. B106304, Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate District, Division Three, California
Issue: Duty to Defend; Torts.
Duane Reade, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine, (2005)
No. 03-9064, Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit.
Issue: Duane Reade, a chain store of sundries and prescription drugs lost its location
at the World Trade Center after 9/11. UP urged the court to consider the
original location of a policyholder's operations as critical to determining
coverage for the "period of restoration."
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (432K pdf)
Press coverage of case (172K pdf)
Ducote, Sr., Craig v. Koch Pipeline Company, LLP, (1998)
No. 98-C-0942 Supreme Court, Louisiana
Issue: Public policy requires that Standard-form, industry-wide
pollution exclusions should be interpreted narrowly so as not to yield
overbroad and unintended or absurd restrictions on insurance coverage.
E.M.M.I. Inc. V. Zurich American Insurance Company, (2002)
No. B152740 California Supreme Court
Issue: Letter brief urging depublication of opinion adopting a narrow interpretation
of coverage exclusion
Employers Insurance of Wausau, A Mutual Company v. City of Waukegan, Illinois, (1998)
No. 2-97-0606, 2-97-0901 Appellate Court, 2nd District, Illinois
Issue: The duty to defend should be determined solely from the
allegations appearing on the face of the complaint. In determining whether or
not the insurance company has the duty to defend, the trial court cannot
examine testimony, depositions, affidavits or other documents.
Engalla, Nida v. The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., (1996)
No. S048811 State Supreme
Court, California
Issue: When a contract of adhesion such as in a medical plan,
contains an arbitration clause, the judiciary should be able o review the
arbitration systems to determine their fairness and neutrality.
Excess Underwriters @ Lloyd's of London v. Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc., (2004)
No. 02-0730 Supreme Court of Texas
This case is covered below under Hollock.
Issue: Insurer's ability to recover defense costs from insureds.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.4MB pdf)
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of The Texas Association of Defense Counsel (264K pdf)
Read the Texas Supreme Court's Ruling (1.8MB pdf)
Download Exhibit A to UP Amicus Brief (2.1MB pdf)
Download Exhibit B to UP Amicus Brief (656K pdf)
Download Exhibit C to UP Amicus Brief (832K pdf)
Download Exhibit D to UP Amicus Brief (1.3MB pdf)
Download Exhibit E to UP Aicums Brief (840K pdf)
Download Order Granting Rehearing (340K pdf)
Factory Mutual Insurance Co. v. Northwest Aluminum, (2003)
No. CV-02-00198-KI, 9th Circuit, United States Court of Appeals
Issue: The doctrine of equitable tolling requires that suit limitations in a policy be
tolled between the date the insurer receives notice of the claim and the date
it denies the claim.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (6.2MB pdf)
Fairfield Insurance Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, (2004)
RP 04-0728, Supreme Court of Texas
Issue: The "all sums" language in a liability policy of insurance should be construed
to provide coverage for gross negligence and punitive damages.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2MB pdf)
Download Exhibit 1 to UP Amicus Brief (1.6MB pdf)
Download Exhibit 2 to UP Amicus Brief (1.7MB pdf)
Download Exhibit 3 to UP Amicus Brief (192K pdf)
Download Exhibit 4 to UP Amicus Brief (1.3MB pdf)
Download Exhibit 5 to UP Amicus Brief (76K pdf)
Download Exhibit 6 to UP Amicus Brief (240K pdf)
Farmington Casualty Company v. Cyberlogic Technologies, Inc., (1998)
No. 98-1611 Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, Michigan
Issue: Meaning of "arising out of" in an advertising injury claim.
Fayad v. Clarendon National Insurance Co., (2004)
FL S.C. Case 3D02-2447, Supreme Court Case No. SC03-1808
Issue: Earth movement exclusion should not be narrowly interpreted.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (92K pdf)
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. City of Lodi, California, (2001)
No. 99-158902 Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, United States
Issue: UP supports lower court decision and educates the court on insurance
company tactics, post claims underwriting, etc.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (9.8MB pdf)
First American Title Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2007)
146 Cal.App.4th 1564, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 734, Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Case No. B194004. UP letter brief requesting depublication filed on March 24th , 2007
Issue: Letter Brief. Plaintiffs must be allowed pre-certification discovery in class actions arising out of insurance marketing and underwriting practices which often involve damages to policyholders that are too small to warrant individual action.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (888K pdf)
First State Insurance Company v. Minnesota Mining Manufacturing Company, (1998)
No. C4-97-1872, CO-97-2257 Supreme Court, Minnesota
Issue: "disappearing decisions"; confidentiality orders.
Fleming v. USAA, (1997)
California.
Issue: pollution exclusion case: UP filed a petition for
reconsideration urging that the key definition of "pollutants" employed in
insurance policies is so overbroad as to be meaningless.
Fluoroware, Inc. v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, (1996)
No. C3-95-1809; No. CX-95-1810 Court or Appeals. Minnesota
Issue: Insurance companies should not be allowed to keep
information supporting coverage from the Courts of their policyholders.
Depublication of pro-policyholder decisions should not be condoned.
Foreign Car Center v. Travelers Indemnity, (1998)
No. 1:97-CV-12587 United States
District Court, Massachusetts
Issue: drafting history; polluter's exclusions; expected or
intended.
Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, (1997)
Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Division, California
Issue: PRP letters as suits; polluter's exclusion
401 Fourth Street Inc. v. Investors Ins. Group, (2004)
Issue: Since the term "collapse" in the policy is ambiguous and connotes only a substantial impairment of a
building's structural integrity, there must be coverage for "imminent collapse"
Court quotes UP's brief.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.5MB pdf)
Fuller-Austin Insulation Company, f/b/o
Fuller-Austin Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Highlands Insurance Company, et al., (2005)
Case No. 06-94 In the Supreme Court of the United States On Petition for a
Writ of Certiorari to The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate
District.
Issue: Insurer's obligation to bankrupt policyholder post discharge. Asbestos case.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (164K pdf)
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders Revised (92K pdf)
Gallagher Bassett Service Inc. v. Chas. Jeffcoat, (2003)
No. 98-TS-00192, Mississippi Supreme Court
Issue: Public service nature of insurance—duty of good faith
and fair dealing.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (8.8MB pdf)
Gamble Farm Inn, Inc v. Selective Insurance Company, (1995)
No. 92-01485 Court ofCommon Pleas, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania
Issue: Insured should have a reasonable expectation that the
third party administrator (TPA) administering a claim has an obligation of good
faith and fair dealing.
Galanty v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., (2000)
No. S073678 23 CA 4th 368 (2000) June 19, 2000
Issue: The two year incontestability clause in a policy cannot be
contradicted by a "First Manifest" provision under the definition of sickness
or any other language in the policy.
Gencorp Inc. v. AIU Insurance Co., (2004)
No. 04-3244, USCA, 6th Circuit
Issue: Coverage for environmental cleanup should be consistent with insured's reasonable expectations of coverage
General Refractories Corp. v. First State Insurance Co., (2006)
U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit. Pennsylvania. Case No. 05-4708.
Issue: The issue on appeal in this case primarily impacts commercial policyholders. A lower
court granted an insurer's motion and dismissed a policyholder's case because
they did not sue every possible insurer that had even a remote connection to
the underlying claim. If the holding is not reversed on appeal it will make it
prohibitively expensive for policyholders to assert their legal rights to
recover in many instances and will result in increased suits against
unnecessary parties.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.6MB pdf)
Download Motion Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (276K pdf)
Download Motion2 Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (240K pdf)
George, Albert, Pearl George, Karen Miller & Steven Jackson v. Guaranty National
Insurance Co., (1997)
No. 96-SC-512-D Supreme Court, Kentucky
Issue: Insurance coverage; "fairly debatable" standard;
reformation; bad faith; fiduciary duty; attorney-client privilege-standard of
review.
Gilbert, Bill v. Alta Health & Life Insurance and Great-West Life & Annuity Ins., (2002)
No. CV-00-J-1703-J Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, United States
Issue: Scope of ERISA preemption after Unum Life Insurance v. Ward. United Policyholders argued that remedial state statutes regulate
insurance and should not be pre-empted by ERISA.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (384K pdf)
Glanton (Alcoa) and Mackner v. Advancepe Health, LP, (2004)
Case No. 04-15328, USCA 9th Circuit
Issue: Participants and Beneficiaries suing on behalf of an ERISA plan under 502(a)
(2) should be able to seek money from the plan in the same manner as a
fiduciary. Petition for rehearing.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (40K pdf)
The Glidden Company v. Lumbermans Mut. Cas. Co., et al., (2004)
No. 81782, Ct. App. 8th Dist.
Issue: This case addresses the availability of insurance coverage
to corporate policyholders after corporate transactions. The insurance
companies had argued that certain corporate transactions eliminate insurance
coverage. The Ohio Court of Appeals disagreed in a significant opinion. They
held that the insured was entitled to benefits under the policies at issue for
pre-acquisition activities of a paint business, including the right to
indemnification and the right to a defense.
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, (2002)
No. 00-1984Supreme Court of Ohio
Issue: Court adopted UP's argument that insurance companies cannot
require that insureds allocate damage among various policies.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3MB pdf)
Greenberg & Covitz v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh, PA, (1998)
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Issue: Claims handling; waiver of defenses not raised in denial
letter.
Greene v. Century National Insurance Co. et al., (2004)
Appellate Court Case No. B144789p
Issue: UP filed a letter brief requesting publication of decision because the case
resolves the question of the ability of the policyholder to claim public
adjuster fees as an item of damage where retention of the public adjuster was
necessitated by the insurer's bad faith conduct.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (300K pdf)
Griffin Dewatering v. Northern Ins. Co. of N.Y., (2007)
Case No. G036896, CA. Ct. App., Fourth Dist., Div. 3.
Issue: "Genuine
Dispute" and Brandt fees.. The genuine dispute doctrine should not apply when the insurer fails to
investigate the insured's claim thoroughly and bases its denial of a duty to
defend on an insufficient investigation. Indeed, the genuine
dispute doctrine has no application to the duty to defend in circumstances
where disputed facts establish a mere potential for coverage. That
potential is the basis of the duty to defend and the insurer's refusal to
assume that duty is bad faith as a matter of law. Moreover, even disputes
regarding the law do not immunize the insurer from liability for bad faith
where the insurer fails to thoroughly investigate the insured's claim and
relies on the first available pretext to deny its duty to defend. Rather,
only when the insurer thoroughly investigates both the facts and the law and
thereby reaches an objectively reasonable and legitimate basis for denial of
coverage does the genuine dispute doctrine apply.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.7MB pdf)
Joel C. Groshong, Joann Huth and Gary Huth v. Mutual Enumclaw Insurance Company, (1997)
SC No. S43912; CA No. A89325; TC No. 9407-04901, Supreme Court of Oregon
Issue: Doctrine of insurability; personal injury; occurrence.
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance et al., (2004)
Issue: The purpose of UP's brief was to educate the court on a
wide range of insurance policy exclusions that are creating claims disputes.
Hailey v. California Physicians' Service dba Blue Shield of California, (2007)
Case No. GO35579, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three.
Issue: Post Claims Underwriting. Health and Safety Code section 1389.3 was designed
to stop the practice of post-claims underwriting. Blue Shield should not be
allowed to engage in post-claims underwriting and rescind its policy when it
fails to sufficiently investigate and turns a blind eye to information it
either knew or had access to and ignored.
Haisch, Elizabeth v. Allstate Insurance Company, (2000)
No. CA-CV 98-0703 Court of Appeals, Division One, Arizona
Issue: An insurance company should not be allowed to sell med-pay
coverage without informing insured that if they are covered by an HMO, the
med-pay coverage is worthless.
Hale v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., (2003)
CA. Ct. of Appeal Case No. A092548, A092833
Issue: UP filed a request for publication of a decision supporting the insured's
claim for punitive damages and the application of Kransco (no comparative bad
faith) to first party cases.
Hameid, Mohammed A. v. National Fire Insurance of Hartford, (2002)
No. S104157 California Supreme Court, July 2002
Issue: In the context of an advertising injury when insured is a small business, the
coverage must be broadly defined to encompass the activities of a small business.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (280K pdf)
Hardy v. Progressive Speciality Ins. Co., (2003)
Supreme Court Montana, Case No. 02-448
Issue: Prohibiting stacking for policyholder's who pay multiple
premiums is not rationally related to making insurance affordable
style.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. SCI Liquidating Corporation, (1999)
No. S99Q15756 Supreme Court, Georgia
Issue: Up argues that the purpose of an umbrella general
liability policy is to provide coverage above a (nominal retained limit) for
claims deemed not to be covered by the underlying CGL policies.
Harris v. Unum Life Insurance Company, (2005)
U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Case. No. 05-4265
Issue: Unum denied claim; tutorial—public service nature of insurance;
insurance principles.
Francie E. Harrison v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, (2003)
U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Docket No. 05-1577
Issue: In absence of definition of "crime" in the policy, disability benefits should
not be denied when first time offense was considered a "violation" and not a
"crime."
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (388K pdf)
Henkel Corporation v. Lloyd's of London, (2003)
No. S0982427 Supreme Court, California
Issue: The fundamental characteristic of a general liability
policy (CGL) providing coverage on the basis of an occurrence is that the
policy never expires even after the policy expires. If the occurrence causing
the damage took place in the policy period, coverage should be provided
regardless of when the damage first manifests.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.1MB pdf)
Heritage Healthcare Services, Inc. et al. v. Beacon Mutual Insurance Company et al., (March 2007)
State of Rhode Island Superior Court, Providence S.C., C.A. No. 2002-7016
Issue: United Policyholders filed an amicus brief to educate the court on why documents and reports resulting from Market
Conduction Examinations conducted by state insurance regulators are
discoverable in civil litigation. The brief was filed on behalf of UP,
the Consumer Federation of America, the California Reinvestment Coalition, the
Empire Justice Center, and New Jersey Citizen Action.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (456K pdf)
Court Order denying discovery of draft MCE report (1.3MB pdf)
Hoffman, David M. v. State of Georgia, Office of Insurance Commissioner and John W. Oxendine, (2003)
No. A04A0134 Court of Appeals, Georgia
Issue: Brief requesting that the State of Georgia be forced to make the Insurance
Commissioner's investigative study of Unum Provident public.
Hollock v. Erie Ins. Exchange, (2004)
842 A.2nd 409, Ca Super
Issue: In Pennsylvania a violation of the Unfair Practices Act
should be relevant evidence of bad faith. An insurance company's violations of
its own internal guidelines, manuals and procedures is relevant evidence of bad
faith. Case upholds post –Campbell ratio of compensatory to punitive
damages of 10:1.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.9MB pdf)
Download Companion Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (1.1MB pdf)
See Penn Erie Insurance Exchange v. Hollock
Humana Inc. and Humana Health Insurance of Nevada, Inc. v. Mary Forsyth, (1999)
525 US 299 (1999)
Issue: Rico Claims; unfair trade practices.
back to the top
Back To Amicus Project Home