Policy Interpretation
Westrock CP, LLC v. Lexington Insurance Company and Indian Harbor Insurance Company
Year: 2024
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District
Case Number: 1-23-1631
Issue:
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • Illinois

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders addresses the novel issue of when pollution conditions should be considered “related” under a pollution legal liability policy. An insured paper mill experienced two pollution “incidents” resulting from different processes at the paper mill (the pulping of paper vs.…
The Masonic Temple Association of Quincy v. Acadia Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Case Number: SJC-13109
Issue:
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • Massachusetts

In its brief, UP explores the issue of whether the named insured in a general liability insurance policy includes a “doing business as” designation, whether policy coverage is limited to liabilities arising out of the “doing business as” entity’s business or whether it applies to the…
Garrett Well, LLC. v. The Frick-Gallagher Manufacturing Co. et. al.
Year: 2021
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Case Number: 2021-0249
Issue:
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • Ohio

In its brief, UP urged the court against departing from the majority rule recognized across the country: that standard historical general liability insurance policy forms insure policyholders against liabilities involving groundwater and damage to other third-party property. In this case, the Court of Appeals applied…
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Walls
Year: 2020
Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
Case Number: 2019-001596
Issue:
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • South Carolina

In its brief, UP advocates for the proper interpretation of consumer protections for automobile policyholders in South Carolina. In this case, Nationwide’s policy purported to deny any coverage for death or injury that a named insured, a relative of a named insured, or a permissive…
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) v. Ace American Insurance Co.
Year: 2020
Court: Indiana Supreme Court
Case Number: 19A-PL-01313
Issue:
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • Indiana

In its brief, UP argues that the Court of Appeals Opinion incorrectly adopts a broad interpretation of exclusionary insurance policy language that threatens to substantially limit or eliminate years of coverage for Indiana policyholders under claims-made insurance policies. Such policies cover claims made during year(s)…
Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Ironics, Inc. and Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.
Year: 2020
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Case Number: 2020-0306
Issue:
  • incorporation doctrine
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • Ohio

In its brief, UP argues that the CGL and Umbrella Policy sold to Ironics requires Motorists Insurance Company to defend and indemnify Ironics against a claim of providing nonconforming tube scale (which upon incorporation into another party’s glass bottles, rendered them unsafe and unusable). The…
Washington National Insurance Corporation, Petitioner/Appellant Vs. Sydelle Ruderman, Et Al. Respondents/Appellees.
Year: 2012
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Case Number: SC12-323
Issue:
  • Ambiguity
  • Extrinsic Evidence
  • Policy Interpretation
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 of home health care policyholders by finding the policy’s benefit provision ambiguous, but…
Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company et al. v. ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al.
Year: 2020
Court: In The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon
Case Number: 120404552
Issue:
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • Oregon

In its brief, UP weighed in to assist the Oregon Supreme Court in ruling on a dispute related to claims for long-tail coverage for environmental clean-up under policies with a variant of the standard “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion. UP urged the court to correct…
McLaughlin v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company
Year: 2019
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Washington
Case Number: 97652-0
Issue:
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • Washington

In its brief, UP argues that this Court should review the Court of Appeals opinion because it substantially narrows the rights of Washington insurance consumers in ways inconsistent with this Court’s decisions and the state’s declared public policy. First, the Court of Appeals ignored Washington’s…