California
Cassim, Fareed vs. Allstate Insurance Company
Year: 2003
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S109711
Issue:
  • Attorney's Fees
State:
  • California

Insureds should have the right to recover attorney’s fees incurred to recover unpaid benefits.
Carrington, Harold J. vs. Superior Court of CA
Year: 2002
Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 4
Case Number: 104694
Issue:
  • Long-term care
State:
  • California

Insurer should not be able to deny long term care policy years later on basis of alleged misrepresentation on application where insured now has Alzheimer’s. (Post claims underwriting)
California Medical Association vs. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of California
Year: 2001
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S103631
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

Health Plans play the same function as health insurers and should be held to the same standards. Policyholders reasonably expect adequate payment by health plans for their healthcare. Because inadequate payment to physicians could compromise the quality of healthcare, underfunding intermediaries and not paying physicians…
California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. vs. California Department of Managed Care et al.
Year: 2001
Court: California Court of Appeal, 3rd District
Case Number: C041091
Issue:
  • Private right of enforcement
State:
  • California

Writ of Mandate requiring California Dept. of Managed Health Care to obey and enforce Health & Safety Code section 137.30(h) (Knox-Keene Act). Policyholders should be able to obtain documents from the CDMHC in connection with their appeal of an HMO denial to ensure that policyholder’s…
California Auto Insurance Company v. Hogan
Year: 2003
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S120950
Issue:
  • Auto insurance
State:
  • California

California motor vehicle insurance provides coverage for injuries bearing almost any causal relationship to the vehicle.
Buss, Jerry H. and California Sports, Inc. vs. Superior Court State of California
Year: 1996
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S052844
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Under California law an insurer has a duty to defend the entire case as long as there is a potential for coverage of even one claim. Insurer can request an allocation of costs after defense is complete. Allocation—covered vs. uncovered.
Blue Ridge v. Jacobsen
Year: 2000
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: 98-55052
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Letter brief requesting rehearing–scope of duty to defend
Delgado vs. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California
Year: 2007
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S155129
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

This case concerns the proper scope of an insurer’s duty to defend its insured in circumstances indicating that the insured may have acted in self-defense. United Policyholders takes the position that whenever the lawsuit contains factual allegations or extrinsic evidence from which the insurer can…
DeBruyn vs. Superior Court (Farmers Group, Inc.)
Year: 2007
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S161000
Issue:
  • Insurance Code Section 530
  • Proximate Cause
State:
  • California

DeBruyn presents a critical issue regarding the rule of efficient proximate cause and Insurance code section 530 in the aftermath of this Court’s opinion in Julien v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company (2005) 35 Cal.4th 747. It is important for this Court to grant the petition…
Davis vs. Ford Motor Credit Company
Year: 2009
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S179049
Issue:
  • Standing
State:
  • California

Resolves the important question of what standard should apply when a consumer (as opposed to a business) brings a claim challenging an alleged “unfair” business practice in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (“UCL”) This brief was…
Davaloo vs. State Farm Insurance Company
Year: 2004
Court: California Supreme Court, 2nd District, Division 7
Case Number: B171352
Issue:
  • Sufficiency of pleadings
State:
  • California

The Davaloo opinion is a pleading case arising out of a property insurance dispute. The opinion concerns whether or not an original complaint contained sufficient factual allegations such that an amended complaint would timely relate back.
Dart Industries vs. Commercial Insurance Co.
Year: 1999
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S096518
Issue:
  • Use of secondary evidence to prove coverage
State:
  • California

Opposing a Court of Appeal Decision, UP urged that insureds (including holocaust victims) who do not have copies of their original policies be allowed to offer “secondary evidence” of lost documents to prove the existence of the policies themselves.
County of San Diego v. Cigna Property and Casualty Company
Year: 2002
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1
Case Number: D038707
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • California

Duty of insurance company to cover claims not specifically addressed by court. Companion case to Ace Property.
County of San Diego vs. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company
Year: 2002
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S114778
Issue:
  • Damages
State:
  • California

The “damages” in an insurance policy should be interpreted broadly to include much more than simply monies ordered by a Court. Even if a standard CGL policy is limited only to monies ordered by a Court, Umbrella Policies, such as the one in issue here…
Continental Casualty Company vs. Superior Court (Paragon Homes, Inc.)
Year: 2000
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S101679, Appellate Case #B147084
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

UP filed a letter brief requesting review or depublication. UP supported position that the underlying allegations determine both coverage and the duty to defend regardless of how they may be labeled.
Cold Creek Compost, Inc., et.al vs. State Farm Fire & Casualty
Year: 2005
Court: California Court of Appeal
Case Number: A114623
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • California

This case involves the proper scope and application of the “reasonable expectations doctrine.” Composting facilities create offensive odors in the ordinary course of business by composting mainly “green materials.” A reasonable policyholder under these circumstances would not consider the odors produced by its operations to…
Firemans Fund Insurance Co. vs. City of Lodi, CA
Year: 2000
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 99-158902
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • California

UP supports lower court decision and educates the court on insurance company tactics, post claims underwriting, etc.
Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, et al. vs. German Motors Corp. et al.
Year: 2006
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S158329
Issue:
  • Garage keepers policy; interpretation of "necessary or incidental"
State:
  • California

Letter brief requesting Petition for Review of Appellate decision. Under a garage keepers policy the phrase “necessary or incidental to” when evaluating scope of coverage is not supported by the broader interpretation contained in published opinions in other states or any published opinions in California.…