California
Richards, Alan vs. Lloyds of London
Year: 1995
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 95-55747, 95-56467
Issue:
  • Choice of Law
  • Forum selection
State:
  • California

Lloyds of London should be judicially estopped from asserting inconsistent positions with regard to enforcement of forum selection and choice of law clauses.
Radian Guaranty Insurance vs. Respondents
Year: 2002
Court: California Insurance Commission
Case Number: SF 15404-A, OAH No. N2002070670
Issue:
  • Title Insurance
State:
  • California

UP supports DOI ruling that two companies that do not meet California criteria for title insurers to cease and desist from transacting title insurance.
Quan vs. Truck Exchange
Year: 1998
Court: California Court of Appeal
Case Number: 5071510
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Amicus in support of request for review. Duty to Defend.
Qualcomm Inc. vs. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London
Year: 2007
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S163293
Issue:
  • Excess Insurance
State:
  • California

Letter in Support of Petition for Review. UP took that the position that where a policyholder settles with a primary insurance for less than the full amount of the policy, the policyholder may still collect from its excess insurance company if a judgment is rendered…
Powerline Oil Company, Inc. vs. Superior Court of California (Central National Fire Insurance Company)
Year: 2002
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S113295
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • California

When a policy uses the terms “suit” and “claim” in its “ultimate net loss provision, the insurer must provide coverage for a lawsuit in a court of law and other judicial proceedings.
Permanent General Assurance Corp. vs. Superior Court (Hernandez)
Year: 2003
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District
Case Number: G033269
Issue:
  • Claims Handling
  • Discovery and admissibility of evidence of pattern
State:
  • California

Request for depublication. ********* Depublication granted Nov. 2004.
Perez vs. Fire Insurance Exchange
Year: 2004
Court: California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Case Number: F043931
Issue:
  • Corporate Structure of Farmer’s Insurance Exchange
State:
  • California
Penn-America vs. Mike’s Tailoring
Year: 2004
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S131639
Issue:
  • Proximate and concurrent causation
State:
  • California

Scope of water damage exclusion involving issues of proximate and concurrent causation.
Peerless Lighting Company v. American Motorists Ins. Co.
Year: 1999
Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District
Case Number: AO 82975, AO83487, AO84373
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Request to Grant Petition for Review. Duty to Defend Case. UP supported the position that the duty to defend attaches as soon as there is a possibility that the allegations of the complaint fall within the coverage of the policy.
Simon, Lionel vs. Sao Paulo U.S. Holding Company, Inc.
Year: 2003
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S121933
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

A careful reading of Campbell shows that the Supreme Court did not lay down a single digit ratio for punitive damages and the decision was not intended to deprive states of the ability to exercise their legitimate state interests in deterring and punishing unlawful conduct…
Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. vs. City of Desert Hot Springs et al.
Year: 2002
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 02-57082, 03-55394
Issue:
  • Exclusions
  • Poor draftsmanship
State:
  • California

Where an insurer chooses to draft an exclusion that does not clearly and unambiguously apply to a specific claim, it cannot argue, after the fact, for a contrary interpretation. Poor draftsmanship cannot support an insurer’s argument for a narrow underwriting construction of coverage.
Sigelman et al. vs. Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 2007
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1
Case Number: D050783
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • California

Letter Brief supporting petition for review. Malpractice insurer rescinded policy for alleged misrepresentation in the application. The policy had been in force for seventeen years. Trial court entered judgment in favor of the policyholder. The Appellate Court reversed.
Scottsdale Insurance Company vs. Essex Insurance Company
Year: 2001
Court: California Superior Court, Orange County
Case Number: 804650
Issue:
  • Condition Precedent
  • Construction Defect
State:
  • California

Request for depublication. In construction defect litigation, the Court should not blindly enforce the condition-precedent language of the special subcontractor’s endorsement. If it does, extra-contractual considerations that are cited for enforcement of the endorsement will be ignored.
St. Joe Minerals Corporation vs. Zurich Insurance
Year: 1998
Court: Fourth Appellate District, California
Case Number: 697526
Issue:
  • Clean up costs as damages
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California
Safeco Insurance Company vs. Parks
Year: 2007
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District
Case Number: B199364 (consolidated with B200267)
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Disclosure Requirement—Under 10 Cal. Code Regs. Section 2695.4(a) mandates that when a claim is made to the insurer, the insurer must “disclose . . . all benefits, coverage, time limits or other provisions of any insurance policy issued by that insurer that may apply to…
Rosen, George vs. State Farm General Insurance Company
Year: 2002
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S108308
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • California

Imminent collapse must be covered under the collapse coverage section otherwise the result is unconscionable.
TRB Investments vs. Fireman’s Fund
Year: 2005
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: F045816
Issue:
  • Interpretation of "under construction" exclusion
State:
  • California

The Court’s interpretation of the “under construction” exception to the exclusion to apply only to the new construction of a building and not to the renovation of an existing building violates California law in numerous ways.
Tran, Ngoc M., dba Shing Fat Supermarket vs. Farmers Group, Truck Insurance Exchange
Year: 2002
Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 3
Case Number: A093437
Issue:
  • Farmers should not be able to avoid liability by claiming that it only serves as “attorney in fact.”
State:
  • California