DeBruyn vs. Superior Court (Farmers Group, Inc.)
Year: 2007
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S161000
Issue:
  • Insurance Code Section 530
  • Proximate Cause
State:
  • California

DeBruyn presents a critical issue regarding the rule of efficient proximate cause and Insurance code section 530 in the aftermath of this Court’s opinion in Julien v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company (2005) 35 Cal.4th 747. It is important for this Court to grant the petition…
Davis vs. Ford Motor Credit Company
Year: 2009
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S179049
Issue:
  • Standing
State:
  • California

Resolves the important question of what standard should apply when a consumer (as opposed to a business) brings a claim challenging an alleged “unfair” business practice in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (“UCL”) This brief was…
Davaloo vs. State Farm Insurance Company
Year: 2004
Court: California Supreme Court, 2nd District, Division 7
Case Number: B171352
Issue:
  • Sufficiency of pleadings
State:
  • California

The Davaloo opinion is a pleading case arising out of a property insurance dispute. The opinion concerns whether or not an original complaint contained sufficient factual allegations such that an amended complaint would timely relate back.
Dart Industries vs. Commercial Insurance Co.
Year: 1999
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S096518
Issue:
  • Use of secondary evidence to prove coverage
State:
  • California

Opposing a Court of Appeal Decision, UP urged that insureds (including holocaust victims) who do not have copies of their original policies be allowed to offer “secondary evidence” of lost documents to prove the existence of the policies themselves.
Dana Corp. vs. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et al.
Year: 1996
Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
Case Number: 17171-6-II
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • Indiana
Cundiff, Jean vs. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company
Year: 2006
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number: Supreme Court of Arizona, No. CV-07-0057-PR, Court of Appeals No. 2 CA-CV 2005-0209, 213 Ariz. 541, 145 P. 3d 638 (App. 2006)
Issue:
  • UIM-offset
State:
  • Arizona

Under Arizona law, an insurer should not be allowed to use the “off-set” clause in the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in order to reduce the amount of UIM benefits paid to its policyholder by the amount of benefits the policyholder received from a workers’ compensation…
Culhane and Turbak vs. Western National Mutual
Year: 2004
Court: Supreme Court South Dakota
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Auto insurance
State:
  • South Dakota
County of San Diego v. Cigna Property and Casualty Company
Year: 2002
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1
Case Number: D038707
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • California

Duty of insurance company to cover claims not specifically addressed by court. Companion case to Ace Property.
County of San Diego vs. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company
Year: 2002
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S114778
Issue:
  • Damages
State:
  • California

The “damages” in an insurance policy should be interpreted broadly to include much more than simply monies ordered by a Court. Even if a standard CGL policy is limited only to monies ordered by a Court, Umbrella Policies, such as the one in issue here…
Country Mutual Ins. Co. vs. Livorsi
Year: 2005
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Case Number: Docket No. 99807
Issue:
  • Notice-prejudice
State:
  • Illinois

Insurance company must show prejudice if it denies a claim based on late notice
Corban v. United Services Automobile Association a/k/a USAA Insurance Agency
Year: 2007
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Case Number: 2008-M-645
Issue:
  • Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
  • Katrina
State:
  • Mississippi

Interlocutory Appeal. Addresses numerous issues: 1). In an “all risk” policy, once the insured proves that “a direct physical loss” was sustained, the insurer has the burden of proof to establish what portion of the “direct physical loss” was caused by a specifically excluded event…
Cook, Heidi Sue vs. American States Insurance Company
Year: 1996
Court: Washington State Supreme Court
Case Number: 35941-0-1
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Washington
Continental Casualty Company vs. Superior Court (Paragon Homes, Inc.)
Year: 2000
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S101679, Appellate Case #B147084
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

UP filed a letter brief requesting review or depublication. UP supported position that the underlying allegations determine both coverage and the duty to defend regardless of how they may be labeled.
Consumer Federation of America et al. vs. Maine Bureau of Insurance
Year: 2002
Court: Maine Superior Court, Kennebec County
Case Number: AP-03-37
Issue:
  • Freedom of Information Act request
State:
  • Maine

Request made under Freedom of Information Act for unredacted version of Arthur Anderson’s report on UnumProvident’s claims handling and other practices for the Maine Department of Insurance.
Consulting Engineers, Incorporated vs. Insurance Company of North America
Year: 1998
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Eastern District
Case Number: 0017 E.D.
Issue:
  • Trigger of Coverage
State:
  • Pennsylvania
Consolidated Edison Company vs. Allstate Insurance Company
Year: 2000
Court: New York State Court of Appeals
Case Number: Motion No. 956/01
Issue:
  • Recoverable damages
State:
  • New York

Insurance companies must pay the entire sum of any liability caused by an accident or occurrence so long as the accident or occurrence causes bodily injury or property damage within the policy period. Insurers cannot escape liability by attempting to limit their obligation to property…
Cold Creek Compost, Inc., et.al vs. State Farm Fire & Casualty
Year: 2005
Court: California Court of Appeal
Case Number: A114623
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • California

This case involves the proper scope and application of the “reasonable expectations doctrine.” Composting facilities create offensive odors in the ordinary course of business by composting mainly “green materials.” A reasonable policyholder under these circumstances would not consider the odors produced by its operations to…
Clark Equipment Company. vs. Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund
Year: 1994
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Case Number: Appeals Court Case No. 95-P-715
Issue:
  • Claims submitted to an insolvency fund
State:
  • Massachusetts