About the Amicus Library

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

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

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

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

Year:
2013
Court:
California Supreme Court
Issue:
Arbitration, Futility Doctrine
State:
California

UP filed a brief in opposition to a ruling that would allow insurance companies to take a "wait and see" approach to arbitration. In Iskanian, the court held that a company that waives... Read more

Year:
2013
Court:
South Carolina Supreme Court
Issue:
Reasonable Expectations of the Insured
State:
South Carolina

UP weighed in to argue that the Court should apply the doctrine of the reasonable expectations of the insured when analyzing the parties’ positions.  Mr. Bell was living with Ms. Severn and their... Read more

Year:
2012
Court:
Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Three
Issue:
Punitive Damages
State:
California

United Policyholders brief opposed common laws limiting the amount of punitive damages a policyholder can recover to the amount of their standard damages multiplied by a number less than ten. ... Read more

Year:
2011
Court:
Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District
Issue:
Vacancy Exclusion
State:
Illinois

<p><span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Insured bought a building into which it intended to move and transfer its operations. The... Read more

Year:
2011
Court:
New Jersey Supreme Court
Issue:
CGL, Burden of Proof
State:
New Jersey

In this case, UP sought to provide the court with policyholders’ perspectives on why an Appellate Division holding needs to be reversed.  The holding relates to how a policyholder can obtain... Read more

Year:
2011
Court:
Court of Appeals, State of New York
Issue:
The “follow the fortunes” doctrine
State:
New York

UP encouraged the Court to uphold a lower court's decision below with respect to the "follow the fortunes" doctrine. The purpose of insurance is to insure – even when the insured is another... Read more

Year:
2012
Court:
Florida Supreme Court
Issue:
Policy interpretation, Ambiguity, Extrinsic evidence
State:
Florida

UP briefed this case to defend Florida's long-standing rule that an ambiguous insurance policy must be interpreted in favor of the policyholder. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for a class... Read more

Year:
2012
Court:
State of Connecticut Court of Appeals
Issue:
Assignment of Bad Faith Claims
State:
Connecticut

UP authored amicus in this important case of first impression supporting the rights of policyholders and their judgment creditors to recover a judgment in excess of the policy limits in contract... Read more

Year:
2011
Court:
Montana Supreme Court
Issue:
Direct Actions, Class Actions, Ethical Claims Conduct
State:
Montana

UP filed an amicus brief in support of a Montana law that allows third parties injured in automobile accidents to bring direct claims against insurance companies who fail to ethically handle... Read more

Year:
2011
Court:
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven
Issue:
Fire Insurance, Duty to Disclose, “Short-Rate” Premiums
State:
California

UP submitted a brief in support of the Appellants, whose claim is that the insurance company violated its disclosure obligations under California Insurance Code section 381(f) by charging... Read more