Taurus Holdings, Inc. vs. United States Fidelity & Guaranty
Year 2003
Court Florida Supreme Court
Case Number SC04-771
Issue
  • Ambiguity
State
  • Florida

UP requests Court affirm that the undefined insurance policy phrase “arising out of” is ambiguous and should be construed in favor of coverage.

Related Docs
Author UP's brief was written pro bono by Wm. Scott Patterson of Jiranek, Jennings and Patterson, LLP.
Related Cases
Deni Associates of Florida vs. State Farm
Year: 1997
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Ambiguity
  • Coverage
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Florida
Sher vs. Lafayette Insurance Company et. al.
Year: 2007
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Case Number: Docket No. 2007-C-2443 and 2007-C-2441
Issue:
  • Ambiguity
  • Katrina
State:
  • Louisiana

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…
Taurus Holdings, Inc. vs. United States Fidelity & Guaranty
Year: 2003
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Case Number: SC04-771
Issue:
  • Ambiguity
State:
  • Florida

UP requests Court affirm that the undefined insurance policy phrase “arising out of” is ambiguous and should be construed in favor of coverage.
Williams et al. vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, and Louisiana Property Insurance Corporation
Year: 2006
Court: U.S. District Court, Louisiana Eastern District
Case Number: 07-00247-CA, 06-2919
Issue:
  • Ambiguity
State:
  • Louisiana

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…