Amicus Library

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. UP argues that decades of case law and on-point California state appellate court authority demonstrate what the insurance industry and policyholders have long…

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders weighs in regarding business interruption losses related to the COVID-19 virus. UP’s brief argues that decades of case law and on-point California state appellate court authority demonstrate what the insurance industry and policyholders have long known: that policies…

In its amicus curiae brief, UP supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. UP argues that decades of case law and on-point California state appellate court authority demonstrate what the insurance industry and policyholders have long known:…

In its amicus curiae brief, UP supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. UP argues that decades of case law demonstrate what the insurance industry and policyholders have long known: that policies that provide coverage for “direct…

In its amicus curiae brief, UP supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 under the extensions of coverage in the operative property insurance policy for Communicable Disease and Loss Avoidance or Mitigation. UP argues that decades of…

In its amicus curiae brief, UP supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 under a “Civil Authority” insuring agreement. UP argues that decades of case law demonstrate what the insurance industry and policyholders have long known: that…

In its amicus curiae brief, UP supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. UP argues that decades of case law demonstrate what the insurance industry and policyholders have long known: that “all risks” insurance policies protect insureds against a…

In its amicus curiae brief, UP supports an insured’s petition for rehearing in the context of coronavirus-related business income losses. UP’s brief argues three main points: (1) the Panel misapplied the Civil Authority Endorsement in the insured’s policy; (2) decades of case law confirm that…

In its brief, UP sets out to clarify the flawed legal arguments that were set forth by the magistrate judge at the trial court level in this case. The magistrate judge concluded that this insuring agreement requires “a physical change in the condition or a permanent dispossession of…

In its brief, UP writes in support of Inns’ appeal to provide further context to this Court regarding: (1) why the insurance term “direct physical loss of or damage to” property does not require a showing of “physical alteration” to real property; (2) how the…

UP’s February 9, 2021 brief discusses whether COVID-19 triggers “physical loss or damage” under a business interruption coverage policy. UP argues that given the insured’s limited allegations in their initial complaint, the most appropriate course of action is for the Ninth Circuit to decline to…

In its brief, UP explores whether the effects of COVID-19 triggers “physical loss or damage” under a business interruption coverage policy. UP states that the most appropriate course of action is for the court to: decline to certify the “physical loss or damage” issue to…

In its brief, UP opposed a Motion to Dismiss a COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim by Oregon Mutual Insurance Company. Specifically, UP address the question of whether “direct physical loss or damage” occurs when the proliferation of a deadly virus and ensuing government closure orders deprive…

In its brief, UP reasons that under California law, real and personal property sustains “direct physical loss or damage” when the proliferation of a deadly virus and ensuing government closure orders deprive that property of its intended use. Its reasoning is that California has set…