Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Wills, David J. And Marcia
Year: 1997
Court: Indiana Supreme Court
Case Number: 795-00-9808 CV 458
Issue:
  • Conflict of Interest
State:
  • Indiana

Insurers should not be allowed to use in-house employee-attorneys to defend policyholder clients because the inherent conflict of interest robs the policyholder of the right to a vigorous, independent and zealous defense.
Firemans Fund Insurance Co. vs. City of Lodi, CA
Year: 2000
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 99-158902
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • California

UP supports lower court decision and educates the court on insurance company tactics, post claims underwriting, etc.
Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company, et al. vs. German Motors Corp. et al.
Year: 2006
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S158329
Issue:
  • Garage keepers policy; interpretation of "necessary or incidental"
State:
  • California

Letter brief requesting Petition for Review of Appellate decision. Under a garage keepers policy the phrase “necessary or incidental to” when evaluating scope of coverage is not supported by the broader interpretation contained in published opinions in other states or any published opinions in California.…
Fayad vs. Clarendon National Insurance Company
Year: 2003
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Case Number: 3D02-2447, Supreme Court Case No. SC03-1808
Issue:
  • Earth Movement
State:
  • Florida

Earth movement exclusion should not be narrowly interpreted.
Farmington Casualty Company vs. Cyberlogic Technologies, Inc
Year: 1998
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
Case Number: 98-1611
Issue:
  • Meaning of “arising out of” in an advertising injury claim
State:
  • Michigan
Fairfield Insurance Co. vs. Stephens Martin Paving
Year: 2003
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: RP 04-0728
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • Texas

The “all sums” language in a liability policy of insurance should be construed to provide coverage for gross negligence and punitive damages.
Fairbanks vs. Superior Court of California, Farmers New World Life Insurance Co., et al.
Year: 2007
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S157001
Issue:
  • Provisions of Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) should apply to insurance
State:
  • California

The provisions of the CLRA, Civil Code Section 1750, et seq. which prohibit “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices” in the sale or lease of “goods or services” to consumers should apply to the sale of insurance.
Factory Mutual Insurance Co. vs. Northwest Aluminum
Year: 2002
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 03-35147
Issue:
  • Statute of Limitations
State:
  • Oregon

The doctrine of equitable tolling requires that suit limitations in a policy be tolled between the date the insurer receives notice of the claim and the date it denies the claim.
Excess Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London vs. Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc.
Year: 2003
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: 02-0730
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Texas

Insurer’s ability to recover defense costs from insureds. See also Hollock.
Everett vs. State Farm General Insurance Company
Year: 2007
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3
Case Number: E41807, 08 C.D.O.S. 5181
Issue:
  • Underinsurance
State:
  • California

Everett puts the onus on people who are not trained or competent to set policy limits. They and countless California homeowners who will be impacted by future wildfires and other natural disasters will be irreparably harmed by the continued publication of the Everett decision. Everett…
Engalla, Nida vs. The Permanente Medical Group, Inc.
Year: 1995
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: SO48811
Issue:
  • Arbitration
State:
  • California

When a contract of adhesion such as in a medical plan, contains an arbitration clause, the judiciary should be able o review the arbitration systems to determine their fairness and neutrality.
Employers Insurance of Wausau vs. City of Waukegan, Illinois
Year: 1997
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, 2nd District
Case Number: 2-97-0606, 2-97-0901
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Illinois

The duty to defend should be determined solely from the allegations appearing on the face of the complaint. In determining whether or not the insurance company has the duty to defend, the trial court cannot examine testimony, depositions, affidavits or other documents.
E.M.M.I. Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company
Year: 2001
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: B152740
Issue:
State:
  • California

Letter brief urging depublication of opinion adopting a narrow interpretation of coverage exclusion
Ducote, Sr., Craig vs. Koch Pipeline Company, LLC
Year: 1997
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Case Number: 98-C-0942
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Louisiana

Public policy requires that Standard-form, industry-wide pollution exclusions should be interpreted narrowly so as not to yield overbroad and unintended or absurd restrictions on insurance coverage.
Duane Reade, Inc. vs. St. Paul Fire & Marine
Year: 2004
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Case Number: 03-9064
Issue:
  • World Trade Center; "Period of restoration"
State:
  • New York

Duane Reed, a chain store of sundries and prescription drugs lost its location at the World Trade Center after 9/11. UP urged the court to consider the original location of a policyholder’s operations as critical to determining coverage for the “period of restoration.”
The Downey Venture vs. LMI Insurance Company
Year: 1996
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Duty to defend; Torts
Dipasquale vs. Security Mutual Life Insurance Company
Year: 2000
Court: New York State Supreme Court
Case Number: No. 601780/98
Issue:
  • Financial incentives to deny
State:
  • New York

Policyholders are entitled to know when an insurance company provides financial incentives to deny claims and to know when their confidential information is provided to Third Party Administrators.
DiPasquale, Christopher v. Security Mutual Life Insurance Co. of NY
Year: 2000
Court: New York State Supreme Court
Case Number: 122062/02,
Issue:
  • SLAPP suits
State:
  • New York

Claims handling philosophy; bad faith; continuing duty of good faith; SLAPP suits; fiduciary; reverse bad faith. (See also case number 601780-98)