"United Policyholder's contribution to the event helped hundreds of families, children, parents, pet owners, and individual community members take action to make themselves and their families more ready for emergencies."
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.
Maryland law does not apply the rule of contra proferentem, accepted by a majority of states - that ambiguous terms in insurance contracts are to be construed strictly against the insurer-drafter... Read more
In this case, the District Court held that the insured’s ERISA action was untimely under the provisions of the Long-Term Disability Plan because the contractual deadline for filing suit... Read more
Under Washington law, insurance contracts are to be interpreted based on the principle of contra preferentem - ambigious terms must be strictly construed against the drafter-insurer and... Read more
On appeal from a decision in error by the Indiana Court of Appeal, UP argued in its brief that the presumptive rule in determining the scope of coverage under a Commercial General Liability Policy... Read more
On certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court confronted the issue of whether statutory bad faith claims may be assigned to an injured... Read more
Under California law, the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. In fact, under Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal. 4th 287, 300 (1993), "the insured must prove... Read more
Punitive damages awards are subject to heightened Due Process scrutiny after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in State Farm v. Campbell. While the Campbell ruling did not... Read more
Under Commercial General Liability policies ("CGL") and Umbrella policies, "publication" of usually defamatory statements to a third person will trigger coverage for "advertising injury" and a... Read more
Under Minnesota law, insurers are required to replace damage and undamaged property with the same "like kind construction and similar use" to ensure uniform appearance and prevent decreased... Read more