Hameid, Mohammed vs. National Fire Insurance of Hartford Year: 2001 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S104157 Issue: Advertising Injury State: California In the context of an advertising injury when insured is a small business, the coverage must be broadly defined to encompass the activities of a small business.
Galanty vs. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company Year: 1999 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S073678 Issue: First ManifestationIncontestability clause State: California The two year incontestability clause in a policy cannot be contradicted by a “First Manifest” provision under the definition of sickness or any other language in the policy.
Bischel vs. Fire Insurance Exchange Year: 1991 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: SO24563 Issue: Code UpgradesGuaranteed Replacement Cost State: California In a letter supporting a petition for review, UP urged the California Supreme Court to determine whether the appellate court’s holding really does support insurers’ position that guaranteed replacement cost policies do not include coverage for code upgrades. UP was contacted by thousands of homeowners…
Wixon vs. Amica Mutual Insurance Company Year: 1995 Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District Case Number: A068078 Issue: Calculation of deductible in an earthquake claim State: California Opposition to request for depublication.
Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. Year: 2010 Court: California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles Case Number: BC300142 Issue: Insurance ExchangesSettlement of Class Action State: California Proposed settlement of a class action in relation to insurance exchanges in which the unclaimed funds would revert back to the culpable insurer and in which the attorney’s fees were unfairly high in relation to the expected actual reimbursements to class members.
Fluor Corp. , et. al. v. Superior Court Of The State Of California, County Of Orange Year: 2010 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S. 196592 Issue: Anti-assignment Clause State: California Overly strong and incredibly broad interpretation of the anti-assignment language that the insurer was trying to invoke. Had the insurer’s interpretation been accepted, insurers could deny the transfer of any CGL policy to any successor in interest, a conclusion that would drastically affect the worth…
Hakimfer v. ROC Design Year: 2010 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5 Case Number: SC 106414 Issue: Conflict of InterestReservation of Rights State: California Counsel provided by the insurer under duty to defend failed to disclose to the insured the potential for a conflict of interest, in violation of attorney professional rules of conduct.
MacKay v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (21st Century National) Year: 2009 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: B220469 Issue: Insurance rate filings State: California UP sought to depublish the MacKay opinion on the grounds that it undermines the essential function of civil lawsuits to the law enforcement activities performed by the California Department of Insurance.
Villa Los Almos HOA v. State Farm General Ins. Co. Year: 2010 Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 4 Case Number: A128443 Issue: Pollution Exclusion and Coverages State: California This is a “total pollution exclusion” case akin to–though with significantly different facts than–the Cold Creek Compost case. In this matter, a homeowners association hired a contractor to scrape acoustic ceilings, resulting in a one-time, accidental and localized release of asbestos in and around the…
L.A. Checker Cab Coop, Inc. vs. First Specialty Insurance Co. Year: 2009 Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District Case Number: B213948 Issue: Intentional Acts State: California Whether an employer is deprived of coverage for its vicarious liability for the act of an employee if the employee acted intentionally. The Court of Appeal held that because the employee’s act was intentional, the employer could not satisfy the portion of the “occurrence” definition…
Arshavir Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC Year: 2013 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S204032 Issue: ArbitrationFutility Doctrine State: California UP filed a brief in opposition to a ruling that would allow insurance companies to take a “wait and see” approach to arbitration. In Iskanian, the court held that a company that waives its right to compel arbitration by failing to timely file the motion…
Thomas Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company Year: 2012 Court: Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Three Case Number: BC405280 Issue: Punitive Damages State: California United Policyholders brief opposed common laws limiting the amount of punitive damages a policyholder can recover to the amount of their standard damages multiplied by a number less than ten. Instead, UP argued that the trier of fact is in the best position to determine…
Craig Streit, et al. v. Farmers Group, Inc. Year: 2011 Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven Case Number: BC434852 Issue: “Short-Rate” PremiumsDuty to DiscloseFire Insurance State: California UP submitted a brief in support of the Appellants, whose claim is that the insurance company violated its disclosure obligations under California Insurance Code section 381(f) by charging policyholders undisclosed “short-rate” premiums for cancellations of their insurance policy before the end of policy term. Section…
Association of California Insurance Companies et al v. Jones Year: 2011 Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One Case Number: B239943 Issue: Agent DutyHome Replacement Cost EstimatingRegulatory AuthorityUnderinsurance State: California UP filed a brief with the California Court of Appeal in Association of California Insurance Companies v. Jones addressing the legality of regulations put forth by the California Department of Insurance to compel sellers of home insurance to properly estimate home replacement values when initiating…
Chubb Custom Ins. Co., et al. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc. Year: 2010 Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit Case Number: 11-16272 Issue: CERCLA State: California UP’s brief argued that insurers should not be allowed to recoup funds under subrogation in CERCLA cases, arguing that allowing otherwise would create the risk of a windfall gain to insurers and that the intent of CERCLA was to maximize the amount of funds available…
Stephens v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company Year: 2014 Court: California Court of Appeal, First District, Division One Case Number: A135938/A136740 Issue: Insurer's Duties/PreventionReplacement Cost Value State: California Insurers owe special duties to policyholders, including the duty to communicate policy requirements and settle claims fairly. Policyholders have a reasonable expectation that their policy benefits will be paid, provided they themselves comply with the requirements of the policy. In cases where the insurer prevents…
Hartford v. Swift Year: 2013 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S207172 Issue: Duty to Defend State: California UP urged the California Supreme Court to follow the clear precedent that an insurer’s “duty to defend” extends to both direct and indirect, express and implied, disparagement claims. UP urged the Court to overturn a holding by the Court of Appeal that was inconsistent with…
Federal Insurance Co. v. MBL, Inc. Year: 2013 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: H0369296 & H036578 Issue: A Policyholder’s Right to Independent Counsel (“Actual” vs. “Potential” Conflicts)Reservation of Rights State: California UP’s position in its amicus brief in this case is that policyholders have a right to independent counsel in cases where the insurer has a “potential” conflict of interest as well as in cases where the insurer’s conflict is actual.. In support of this position,…