Pennsylvania
Lititz Mutual Insurance Company vs. Steely
Year: 1999
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Middle District
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Reasonable expectations; “absolute” pollution exclusion.
Millers Capital Insurance Company vs. Gambone Brothers Development Co., et al.
Year: 2006
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
Case Number: Docket No. 420 EDA 2007
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Case involves insurance coverage for property damage resulting from faulty workmanship by an insured contractor and its subcontractors. The standard form general insurance liability policy (“CGL”) was intentionally designed to cover the underlying claims of faulty workmanship.
Ravindran vs. Harleysville Insurance Company
Year: 2002
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Tutorial to court re: utmost good faith; bad faith; arbitration
Rohm and Haas Company vs. Continental Casualty Company
Year: 1998
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Eastern District
Case Number: 00670PHL98 & 00671PHL98
Issue:
  • "Known loss" standard vs. proof of fraud in application
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania should require proof of fraud on an application for insurance by clear and convincing evidence and should not adopt a “known loss” standard which drastically lowers the insurer’s burden.
Simon Wrecking Company Inc., et al. vs. AIU Insurance Company, et al.
Year: 2007
Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Case Number: 03-CV3231
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Interpretation of pollution exclusion clause. UP urged the Court to interpret the “sudden and accidental” exclusion in favor of coverage and should estop CNA (the defendant) from applying the exclusion in anyway that is inconsistent with its representation to the State Insurance regulators in 1970…
Sunbeam Corporation vs. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 1999
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: 1122 PG97
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Pollution exclusion; estoppel; insured’s reasonable expectations of coverage
Wagner vs. Eire Ins.
Year: 2002
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Reasonable Expectations of Coverage
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Gasoline station owner’s reasonable expectation of coverage for damage caused by gasoline should control.
Weiss, Richard D. vs. UnumProvident
Year: 2004
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 05-5428
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • Pennsylvania

UP argued that the Supreme Court has held that RICO enforcement does not conflict with ERISA or the McCarran-Ferguson Act and that UnumProvident’s history of reprehensible bad faith claim handling, evidenced by governmental sanctions and numerous court decisions, requires that Plaintiffs be allowed their day…
Hussey Copper, Ltd. v. Arrowood Indemnity Company, f/k/a Royal Insurance Company of America
Year: 2009
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 09-4037
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Pennsylvania

UP’s letter addressed the meaning of the absolute pollution exclusion and how it affects policyholders throughout the nation. Insurance policies are often the only viable source of defense and indemnification. The absolute pollution exclusion undercuts coverage that policyholders had bought and relied upon. If misapplied,…
American and Foreign Insurance Company et. al. vs. Jerry’s Sport Center, Inc. et. al.
Year: 2007
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: 88 MAP 2008
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Pennsylvania

A claim is potentially covered, thus triggering the duty to defend, when there is uncertainty as to coverage. Once this uncertainty is eliminated through a declaratory judgment action it does not retroactively eliminate the ambiguity that triggered the insurer’s duty to defend during the period…
Willow Inn, Inc. vs. Public Service Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 2003
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 03-2837
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Pennsylvania

A punitive damage award that exceeds the Campbell ratio of 9:1 does not violate substantive due process.
The Babcock and Wilcox Company, et al. v. American Nuclear Insurers, et al.
Year: 2014
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: 2 WAP 2014
Issue:
  • Recovery of Reasonable Settlement
  • Reservation of Rights
State:
  • Pennsylvania

In an issue of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered whether an insured can recover reasonable settlement amounts if the insurer refuses to consent to settlement, in cases where the insurer defends its insured under a reservation of rights. UP argued in its brief…
Allstate Property and Casualty Co. v. Jared Wolfe
Year: 2014
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: 39 MAP 2014
Issue:
  • Assignment of Bad Faith Claims
  • Public Policy and Tort Remedies
State:
  • Pennsylvania

On certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court confronted the issue of whether statutory bad faith claims may be assigned to an injured third party when the insured settles its claim and/or chooses not to pursue…
Mut. Benefit Ins. Co. v. Politopoulos et al.
Year: 2014
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: 60 MAP 2014
Issue:
  • Employer's Liability
  • Separation of Insureds
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Under a correct reading of an Umbrella Policy, an Employer’s Liability exclusion only applies where an insured is sued by its own employee (e.g., damages for bodily injury in a suit brought by a co-insured). Pennsylvania law supports this interpretation. An Umbrella policy’s provisions are…
General Refractories v. First State Ins. Co. et al
Year: 2016
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 15-3409
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Under Pennsylvania law, insurers have the burden to prove that an exception applies in order to deny coverage. Thus, a reviewing court must give more weight to extrinsic evidence presented by the insured promoting coverage than extrinsic evidence presented by the insurer who is trying…
Rancosky v. Washington National Ins. Co.
Year: 2017
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: 28 WAP 2016
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Under Pennsylvania law, insurance companies are subject to attorneys fees and punitive damages for acting in bad faith towards their policyholders. State law also provides that courts may award interest 3% above the prime rate when a policyholder prevails in a bad faith claim. This…
Pennsylvania Manufacturer’s Ass’n Ins. Co. v. Johnson Matthey, Inc. et al
Year: 2017
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: 24 MAP 2017
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Pennsylvania

UP appeared with other amici (Alco Industries, Inc., Allegheny Technologies, Inc. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation Arkema Inc., Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. Braskem America, Inc., CBS Corporation, ultimate successor to Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC International Paper Company, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC…
Kurach v. Truck Insurance Exchange
Year: 2019
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Eastern District
Case Number: 12 EAP 2019
Issue:
  • Actual Cash Value
  • General Contractor Overhead and Profit
State:
  • Pennsylvania

In this brief, UP argues that General Contractor Overhead and Profit (GCOP) should not be excluded when determining the Actual Cash Value (ACV) benefits under property insurance policies affording replacement coverage. The policy language in this particular case stated that the insurer was authorized to…