Contract Interpretation
Universal American Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
Year: 2014
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Case Number: APL-2014-00133
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
  • Cyber Liability - Fraud
State:
  • New York

The carrier denied coverage for payments incurred as losses for fraudulent use of the insured’s computer systems (bogus medicare payments). However, the insured had purchased a “Computer Systems Fraud” rider which the insured argued would cover such losses. Fraudulent conduct, as defined in the rider,…
Peoples Insurance Counsel Division v. State Farm
Year: 2014
Court: Maryland Court of Appeals
Case Number: 21 - September Term 2014
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Maryland

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; instead, Maryland law treats an insurance contract like any other contract, drafted by parties…
Pistorese v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company
Year: 2014
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 14-35027
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
  • Long Term Care Insurance
State:
  • Washington

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 in favor of the insured as to effectuate coverage. UP argued in its brief, that in the long-term-care…
Thomson, Inc. et al. v. XL Insurance, Inc. et al.
Year: 2014
Court: Indiana Supreme Court
Case Number: 49A05-1109-PL-470
Issue:
  • Allocation and Contribution
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Indiana

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 (“CGL”) should be “all-sums” or joint and several liability. For “long-tail”…
Demetrio v. Stewart Title Insurance
Year: 2015
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Case Number: 2010/101760
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • New York

A court faced with textual ambiguity may review extrinsic evidence to assist the trier of fact in ascertaining what the parties intended in entering into the contract. UP argued in its brief that an insurance company ought not to be able argue to the court,…
Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Sony
Year: 2015
Court: New York Appellate Division, Manhattan
Case Number: 651982/11
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
  • Data Breach/Cyber Liability
State:
  • New York

Insurance coverage for data breach should be available under a commercial general liability policy’s “publication” provision. Under New York law, coverage should be available for situations where the insured is alleged to have intentionally published material and when it negligently permits a third party to…
Allianz Global Risks U.S. Ins. Co., Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Ace Property and Casualty Ins. Co. et al
Year: 2016
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Case Number: A159858
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Oregon

In an insurer v. insurer coverage battle, UP and co-amici urged an interpretation favorable to the policyholder of a coverage provision which does not require “seepage, pollution or contamination” resulting from a “sudden, unintended and unexpected happening” during the policy period to be “abrupt” or…
General Refractories v. First State Ins. Co. et al
Year: 2016
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 15-3409
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Under Pennsylvania law, insurers have the burden to prove that an exception applies in order to deny coverage. Thus, a reviewing court must give more weight to extrinsic evidence presented by the insured promoting coverage than extrinsic evidence presented by the insurer who is trying…
The Doe Run Resources Corp. v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co. et al
Year: 2017
Court: Missouri Supreme Court
Case Number: No. SC96107
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Missouri

Insurance companies have the burden to draft express and clear exclusions when they desire to limit the coverage they sell to their policyholders. Pollution exclusions in particular must be clear and unambiguous. These exclusions have caused an enormous amount of litigation and confusion in the…
Pennsylvania Manufacturer’s Ass’n Ins. Co. v. Johnson Matthey, Inc. et al
Year: 2017
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: 24 MAP 2017
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Pennsylvania

UP appeared with other amici (Alco Industries, Inc., Allegheny Technologies, Inc. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation Arkema Inc., Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. Braskem America, Inc., CBS Corporation, ultimate successor to Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC International Paper Company, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC…
Karas v. Liberty Insurance Corporation
Year: 2018
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut
Case Number: S.C. 20149
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Connecticut

“Substantial impairment of structural integrity” is the applicable standard for “collapse” and need not be clarified. This definition includes an impairment which, if not remedied, will lead inevitably to a caving in, a falling down, and/or a structure’s being unsafe to occupy. The terms “Foundation”…
U.S. Bank v. Indian Harbor ACE Ins. Co.
Year: 2015
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
Case Number: 15-1691
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
  • Coverage for Settlements
State:
  • Minnesota

Applying Delaware law, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota correctly held that insurers may not escape liability for coverage by applying erroneous exclusions and attempting to rewrite the bargained for coverage at claim time. Where insurers desire to exclude certain conduct from…