United Policyholders Amicus Project

Radian Guaranty Ins. v. Respondents, (2003)
SF 15404-A OAH No. N2002070670
Issue: UP supports DOI ruling that two companies that do not meet California criteria for title insurers to cease and desist from transacting title insurance.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3.5MB pdf)

Ravindran v. Harleysville Insurance Company, (2003)
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Issue: Tutorial to court re: utmost good faith; bad faith; arbitration.

Richard, Alan v. Lloyds of London, (1996)
No. 95-55747, 95-56467, United States Court of Appeals 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)

Safeway Insurance Co. v. Guerrero, (2004)
No. CV-04-0146-PR, Court of Appeals No. 1-CA-CV 02- 0661, Supreme Court of Arizona
Issue: When an insurer has failed in some respect to fulfill a legal duty to its insured, the insured can enter into a reasonable settlement agreement without the insurer's permission.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3MB pdf)

Salem Suede, Inc. vs Zion Realty Corp., (1998)
No. 96-13184-JNF, 96-14692-JN, United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Massachusetts
Issue: Insurance companies which have allegedly violated their independent duty of good faith and fair dealing to innocent injured third party claimants cannot be allowed to misuse the bankruptcy process to escape potential statutory liability to third parties.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (4MB pdf)

Schwartz et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, (2007)
United State Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, (New York) Docket No. 07-2794-cv (L), 07-2818-cv (CON).
Issue: The Policyholder should not forfeit coverage under the policy when the policyholder settles a claim without the insurance company's authority, after the insurance company intentionally placed it interests adverse to those of the policyholder by issuing a reservation of rights and without any showing that the insurance company was prejudiced by the settlement.

Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Essex Insurance Company, (2002)
No. 804650, Orange County Superior Court, California
Issue: Request for depublication. In construction defect litigation, the Court should not blindly enforce the condition-precedent language of the special subcontractor's endorsement. If it does, extra-contractual considerations that are cited for enforcement of the endorsement will be ignored.

Security Insurance Co of Hartford v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co, (2002)
AC 21960 Appellate Court of State of Connecticut
Issue: Drafting history sanctions the policyholder's right to designate which general liability insurance policies are liable to respond fully to a continuing injury. This is inconsistent with any "pro-rata" allocation among insurers.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.7MB pdf)

Security Mutual Life Ins v. Christopher Dipasquale, (2000)
No. 601780/98 Appellate Division, New York Supreme Court
Issue: Years after selling a policy, Security Mutual entered into a secret agreement with Berkshire Life delegating to Berkshire the right and obligation to handle security mutual claims. It then applied Mass. Law to New York Policyholders without telling them. UP took position that this constituted a fraudulent nondisclosure amounting to bad faith.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (760K pdf)

SER Allstate Insurance Co. v. John T. Madden, (2004)
No. 31392 Supreme Court of Appeals, West Virginia
Issue: See State of West Virginia v. Madden below.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2MB pdf)

Serio, Gregory v. Allstate Insurance Company, (2001)
No.00-7769 & 00-7780, State of New York Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States
Issue: UP takes position that the State cannot require its citizens to buy a product and then be forced to stand by powerless in the face of the undesirable product claims in the advertising campaigns for the mandated product.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (3.2MB pdf)

Shapiro, Paul v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company, (2000)
No. 99-7980(L) Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, United States
Issue: Section 349 of the General Business Code makes it possible for insurance companies to be compelled to pay the legal costs of policyholders who successfully sue their insurance companies. It is very important that this section of the business code be enforced fully and fairly. The policyholder should not be required to prove an extensive pattern of conduct by the insurance company in order to invoke Section 349.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (2.9MB pdf)

Sher v. Lafayette Insurance Company et. al. (2008)
Supreme Court of Louisiana, Docket No. 2007-C-2443 and 2007-C-2441. Consolidated with Landry v. Citizens for oral argument.
Issue: Katrina case. Ambiguity of flood exclusion. The Shers had an “all risk” policy which extends coverage for all fortuitous losses, unless the policy contains a specific exclusion. A lower court considered a “flood” exclusion in the Lafayette all-risk policy and found it too ambiguous to exclude coverage for Katrina damage to a home. The case also addressed continuing duty of good faith and fair dealing. United Policyholders urges the Court to leave the lower court ruling intact and take the position that an insurer should be held liable for the enhanced statutory penalties of La.Rev. Statute section 22:658 when bad faith conduct continued after the amendment to the statute was enacted. United Policyholders’ brief was drafted pro bono by Deborah Trotter, Chip Merlin and Mary Kestenbaum of the Merlin Law Group.
Download Brief Amicus Curiae of United Policyholders (152K pdf)

Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. V. City of Desert 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)
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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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)

United Policyholders Amicus Project

Amicus Curiae Briefs