Amicus Briefs Archive - United Policyholders

Los Angeles Unified School District v. Lexington Insurance Company

Court: California Second Appellate District

Case Number: B340066

Accident/Occurrence
Employee's Torts and Negligence
Employer's Vicarious Liability

California

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders addresses important doctrinal questions regarding liability insurance coverage for liabilities arising from an employer’s negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of an employee that causes harm or commits an intentional tort. Specifically, United Policyholders’ brief addresses how it is necessary…

Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Co., v. American Commercial Barge Line, LLC

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals

Case Number: 25A-PL-01073

Choice of Law
Maritime

Indiana

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders argues against the application of federal admiralty law relating to insurance claims of a nonmarine nature. Insurance policies that provide broad-based and nonmarine coverages that are clearly distinct and separate from other covered maritime risks as a general rule…

Evanston Insurance Company v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Number: 25-3165

Aggregate Limits
Policy Interpretation

California

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders addresses whether an insurance policy that does not contain an aggregate limit should have an aggregate limit imposed by a court on the grounds that a general liability policy with only a per occurrence limit of liability, and no…

Nargizyan v. State Farm

Court: California Second Appellate District

Case Number: B342340

Water Damage

California

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders weighs in on the important issues of water loss claims for homeowners in the context of the “Continuous or Repeated Seepage or Leakage” (CRSL) exclusion. Across the state of California and around the country, certain insurance companies have been…

Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Superior Court (Canadian Universal)

Court: California Supreme Court

Case Number: S285083

Extrinsic Evidence & Qualified Pollution Exclusion

California

Letter in support of petition for review regarding (a) the important and recurring issue of California insurance law concerning whether and when a policyholder may offer extrinsic evidence to prove that language in an insurance policy that a court has found to be unambiguous in…

Spectrum Retirement Communities, LLC, et al. v. Continental Casualty Company

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Case Number: 2025SC433

COVID-19

Colorado

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. UP’s brief addresses the far-reaching and adverse effects that the lower court’s split decision is likely to have on Colorado policyholders, if not…

Griffith Foods International, Inc., and Sterigenics, U.S., LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, P.A.

Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Case Number: 131710

Sudden and Accidental Pollution Exclusion

Illinois

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders provides a detailed analysis of history and case law demonstrating that a business’s emissions pursuant to a governmentally issued permit do not and should not qualify as “traditional environmental pollution” and thus fall outside general liability policies’ standard pollution exclusion.

United Services Automobile Association and State Farm v. Anthony Wenzell

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Case Number: 2024SC000372

Exhuastion

Colorado

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders argues in favor of nullifying exhaustion provisions in excess underinsured-motorist insurance policies.

Griffith v. Property and Casualty Ins. Co. of Hartford

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Case Number: S072088

Attorney's Fees

Oregon

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders weighs in regarding attorney fee awards, arguing that making an insured whole is a key compensatory purpose of attorney fee awards and that any award amount that would leave an insured less than whole undermines the purpose of ORS…

Century Indemnity Co. V. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department

Case Number: 2024-00848

Contra Proferentem

New York

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders weighs in on one of the bedrock principles of insurance law, the doctrine of contra proferentem. Under the doctrine, ambiguous terms in insurance contracts are construed against the insurer. And the rationale is straightforward. Insurance companies write the policies…

Great Northwest Ins. Co. v. Campbell

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Case Number: A23-0519

Code Upgrades

Minnesota

In its amicus curiae brief, UP argues that Minnesota law requires that replacement cost insurance policies include coverage for repairs that are mandatory to comply with the building code after a covered loss even if the insurance policy purports to say otherwise.

Aegean LLC v. Taggart Ins. Center Inc.

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Case Number: 24A-PL-02270

Agent Duty

Indiana

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders seeks to assist the Court on an issue of immense public importance: identifying an insurance broker’s duty to its clients, specifically, an insurance broker’s duty to advise its clients. Likewise, United Policymakers seeks to assist the Court in addressing…

State Farm v. Amanali Babwari

Court: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Number: 24-11396

Duty to Defend

Alabama

United Policyholders’ amicus brief addresses the consequence of an insurance company’s breach of the duty to defend. UP’s brief argues that State Farm should not be allowed to attempt to avoid paying for a consent judgment issued against its insured. State Farm initially defended its…

Gharibian v. Wawanesa General

Court: California Supreme Court

Case Number: S289700

Physical Loss or Damage

California

United Policyholders in partnership with the Consumer Federation of America submitted a request for depublication letter to the California Supreme Court. This issue regarded a California Court of Appeal decision that misconstrued well-established law when it held that a homeowner’s property insurance policy does not…

Origis USA LLC and Guy Vanderhaegen v. Great American Insurance Co., et al

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Case Number: 461-2024

No Action Clause

Delaware

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders argues that an insurer that denies coverage cannot enforce conditions precedent such as the “no action” clause to avoid insurance coverage litigation brought by its insured.

Aearo Technologies LLC, et al. v. ACE American Insurance Co., et al.

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Case Number: 381, 20204

Delaware

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders addresses the issue of whether payments made by a parent corporation on behalf of the parent corporation’s wholly owned subsidiary counts towards an insurance policy’s “self-insured retention” (SIR) requirements.

In the Matter of the Petition for Coordination of Maui Fire Cases

Court: Hawai'i Supreme Court

Case Number: SCRQ-24-0000602

Subrogation

Hawaii

Through our Roadmap to Recovery program, United Policyholders is providing information and support to households impacted the devastating fire that destroyed homes and businesses and the town of Lahaina in August of 2023. The majority of those whose properties were destroyed found themselves underinsured and…

Fox Paine & Co v. Twin City Fire Insurance Co.

Court: California Supreme Court

Case Number: S287404

Excess Insurance

California

United Policyholders submitted two letters to the California Supreme Court (first a request for depublication on November 4, 2024 and then subsequently a letter in support of petition for review on December 9) regarding the issue of whether a policyholder who faces a large liability…