Santo’s Italian Cafe v. Acuity
Year: 2021
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Case Number: 21-3068
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Ohio

In its brief, UP combats Acuity’s argument that in order to trigger coverage, there must be a “tangible alteration” of the business. UP does not share that view and urges the court to broaden the meaning of physical loss to include damage that renders property…
RTG Furniture v. Aspen
Year: 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Number: 21-10490
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Florida

In it’s brief, UP tackles the topic of COVID-19. In the argument’s summary, UP states that the district court erred in holding “direct physical loss of or damage to” has only one meaning–“tangible injury to property”– because in doing so the district court: (1) ignored…
TJBC, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co. Inc.
Year: 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Case Number: 21-1203
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Illinois

In it’s brief, UP breaks down the meaning of property in the context of COVID-19. In ascertaining the meaning of the phrase “direct physical accidental loss or damage” to property, it is critical not to minimize the significance and legal import of the word “property.” At…
Mac Property Group, LLC v. Selective Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: New Jersey Appellate Division
Case Number: L-002629-20
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • New Jersey

In its brief, UP tackles the issue COVID-19 has posed to businesses. The present case is neither theoretical nor without significant consequences to the multitude of New Jersey businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.  Indeed, this Court’s decision is likely to affect businesses throughout this State…
Kirsch v. Aspen American Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Case Number: 21-1038
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Michigan

In it’s brief, UP address the issue of physical loss of or damage to the property of Dr. Kirsch’s dental practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. This case presents a basic lesson in textualism. Aspen promised to insure business income if Dr. Kirsch suffered “physical loss of…
State Farm v. Sanders
Year: 2021
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Case Number: SC20-596
Issue:
  • Appraisal
  • Scope of Appraisal
State:
  • Florida

In its brief, UP tackles the issue of appraisal. Insurance companies design and control the insurance policy form and the claim process. Property insurance carriers typically, as an element of exercising that control, place appraisal provisions in their policies to resolve disputes over the amount of…
Firebirds International, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins., Co.
Year: 2021
Court: Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division
Case Number: 2020-CH-05360
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Illinois

In its brief, UP sheds light of Zurich’s attempt to deny coverage to policyholders across Illinois and North America for losses sustained as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (the “Coronavirus”), the disease it causes, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) and the physical loss of or damage…
M&O Agencies, Inc. v. Murillo et. al.
Year: 2021
Court: Court of Appeals State of Arizona
Case Number: 2 CA-SA 2021-0010
Issue:
  • Anti-Abrogation
State:
  • Arizona

In its brief, UP argues that he 2016 and 2019 amendments to A.R.S. § 20-259.01(A) and (B) purported to create a safe harbor barring common-law clams for professional negligence against insurance agents and brokers, and creates a safe harbor for them if they used an approved form…
Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.
Year: 2021
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Case Number: C190176
Issue:
  • Opioid Epidemic
State:
  • Ohio

In its brief, UP is concerned with the insurance industry’s recent efforts to reshape insurance coverage law in Ohio and elsewhere as it applies to commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies and government suits against policyholders. With increasing frequency governments have sought damages against policyholders in…
Sproull v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co
Year: 2021
Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
Case Number: 126446
Issue:
  • Labor Depreciation
State:
  • Illinois

In its brief, UP notes that building owners purchase property insurance to protect themselves if their property is damaged by fire, hail, tornadoes, or other often catastrophic events. In the case of homeowners, adequate payment of insurance policy benefits is often what stands between them…
Garrett Well, LLC. v. The Frick-Gallagher Manufacturing Co. et. al.
Year: 2021
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Case Number: 2021-0249
Issue:
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • Ohio

In its brief, UP urged the court against departing from the majority rule recognized across the country: that standard historical general liability insurance policy forms insure policyholders against liabilities involving groundwater and damage to other third-party property. In this case, the Court of Appeals applied…
HT-Seattle Owner, LLC. v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: United States District Court Western District of Washington At Seattle
Case Number: Number: 2:21-cv-00048-BJR
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Washington

In its brief, UP sheds light on Zurich Edge’s pre-printed policy form that it issues to only its very large property policyholders and includes an endorsement that deletes “virus” from the Policy’s Contamination Exclusion (the “Virus Deletion Endorsement”). The “all-risk” policy provides coverage for COVID…
California Spine and Neurosurgery Institute v. Blue Cross of California
Year: 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 4:18-cv-04777-PJH
Issue:
  • ERISA anti-assignment clause
State:
  • California

Plaintiff performed surgery on a patient covered under an ERISA healthcare plan administered by defendant. As is custom, plaintiff obtained a signed agreement assigning the patient’s rights and benefits under the plan to plaintiff. Despite numerous communications making this fact known, defendant never told plaintiff…
Peterson v. Western National Mutual Insurance
Year: 2019
Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Case Number: A18-1081
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Minnesota

In its brief, UP weighed in on Minnesota’s bad faith statute, § 604.18, in order to protect Minnesota policyholders when an insurance company does not complete a reasonable investigation of a claim. UP weighed in to avoid a narrow reading of the statute which would not…
Mama Jo’s, Inc. v. Sparta Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: United State Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Number: 18-12887
Issue:
  • Physical Loss or Damage
State:
  • Florida

In its brief, UP weighs in on whether the dust from a construction site adjacent to Mama Jo’s resulted in “direct physical loss or damage to the property enough to trigger policy coverage. The summary of the argument is taken from the amicus: “The issues…
Neuro-Communication Services, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: The Supreme Court of Ohio
Case Number: 20CV01275
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Ohio

In its brief, UP urges the court to exercise its discretion and decline to answer a question that was certified by the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio. The question, UP argues, addresses well settled principles of contract and insurance law that are…
Procaccianti Co. Ins. V. Zurich American Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Case Number: 1:20-cv-00512-WES-PAS
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Rhode Island

In its brief, UP refutes Zurich’s position that “the headings in the Policy should be used to defines the scope of coverage.” UP’s position is that this notion upends the long-established principles of insurance policy interpretation. Policy language must be given it plain, ordinary, and…
Gavrilides Management Co. LLC et. al. v. Michigan Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: Thirtieth Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan, Ingham County
Case Number: 354418
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Michigan

In its brief, UP argues four points relating to whether COVID-19 constitute physical loss or damage and whether the findings of previous courts preclude policyholders from being compensated for business interruptions. This case is not the proper vehicle for ruling on an issue that will…