Birth Center vs. St Paul Companies, Inc
Year: 1999
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Middle District
Case Number: Nos. 25, 26, 27 & 28 M.D. Appeal Dkts. 2000
Issue:
  • Refusal to Settle
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Payment of an excess verdict does not extinguish the insurer’s bad faith refusal to settle under Pennsylvania law.
Bi-Economy Market, Inc. vs. Harleysville Insurance Company of New York
Year: 2006
Court: New York State Court of Appeals
Case Number: Monroe County Index. No. 2004-11840, Appellate Division Index Case No. CA 06-00847
Issue:
  • Breach of Contract
  • Consequential Damages
State:
  • New York

The policyholder sought consequential damages for the loss of its business as a result of the insurance company’s refusal to make timely payment . The trial court refused to award consequential damages. United Policyholders argued that such damages are routinely awarded in breach of contract…
Berthelot et al. vs. Boh Brothers Construction Co. L.L.C. et al
Year: 2006
Court: U.S. District Court, Louisiana Eastern District
Case Number: 05-4182 section "K"(2)
Issue:
  • Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
State:
  • Louisiana

The anti-concurrent causation language upon which Defendants rely has already been deemed ambiguous as a matter of law by another Federal Court addressing similar arguments raised by Defendants. Tuepker v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2006 WL 1442489 (S. D. Miss.). Furthermore, Defendants’ position…
Benoy Motor Sales, Inc. vs. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company
Year: 1995
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, Division 1
Case Number: 96-0536
Issue:
  • Loss Mitigation
State:
  • Illinois

Loss Mitigation; Indemnity v. Defense; PRP letters as suits
Delgado vs. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California
Year: 2007
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S155129
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

This case concerns the proper scope of an insurer’s duty to defend its insured in circumstances indicating that the insured may have acted in self-defense. United Policyholders takes the position that whenever the lawsuit contains factual allegations or extrinsic evidence from which the insurer can…
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.