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)
Denmark vs. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston
Year: 2005
Court: Massachusetts District Court
Case Number: 05-2877
Issue:
  • ERISA
  • Objective evidence of disability
State:
  • Massachusetts

Anti-consumer and anti-policyholder affects of denying coverage in disability cases involving both a disease that is difficult to document objectively and an overwhelming amount of medical evidence that favors a finding of complete disability. Long term care insurance companies are sometimes permitted too much discretion…
Deni Associates of Florida vs. State Farm
Year: 1997
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Ambiguity
  • Coverage
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Florida
Demolition Contractors, Inc. d/b/a Pitsch Wrecking Co. vs. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company
Year: 2008
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
Case Number: 09-1582
Issue:
  • Voluntary payments as bar to coverage; Effect of "no action" clause
State:
  • Michigan

Do “voluntary payment” and “no action” terms bar payment by insurance company. Courts in Michigan and throughout the United States have held that, with regard to coverage, it makes no difference whether a policyholder voluntarily cleans up the contamination for which it is responsible before…
Griffith Oil Company, Inc. vs. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh
Year: 2008
Court: New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Department 4
Case Number: Appellate Division Docket Nos. CA 08-00930 and CA 08-026565
Issue:
  • Products Completed Operations Hazard
State:
  • New York

UP urges the Court to reverse the lower court’s ruling that a Products Completed Operations Hazard provision includes a restrictive condition that the policyholder physically possesses its product prior to the occurrence. The plain language of the insurance policy, and the fundamental purpose behind the…
Griffin Dewatering vs. Northern Insurance Company of New York
Year: 2006
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3
Case Number: G036896
Issue:
  • Brandt Fees
  • Genuine Dispute
State:
  • California

The genuine dispute doctrine should not apply when the insurer fails to investigate the insured’s claim thoroughly and bases its denial of a duty to defend on an insufficient investigation. Indeed, the genuine dispute doctrine has no application to the duty to defend in circumstances…
Greene vs. Century National Insurance Company, et al.
Year: 2003
Court: Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1
Case Number: 1 CA-CV-95-0145; B144789p.
Issue:
  • Public adjuster fees as element of damages
State:
  • Arizona

UP filed a letter brief requesting publication of decision because the case resolves the question of the ability of the policyholder to claim public adjuster fees as an item of damage where retention of the public adjuster was necessitated by the insurer’s bad faith conduct.
Greenberg & Covitz v. National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh, PA.
Year: 1997
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Waiver of Defenses
State:
  • New Jersey

Claims handling; waiver of defenses not raised in denial letter
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company vs. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
Year: 2001
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Case Number: 00-1984
Issue:
  • Insureds not required to allocate damages
State:
  • Ohio

Court adopted UP’s argument that insurance companies cannot require that insureds allocate damage among various policies.
Glidden Company vs. Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Company, et al.
Year: 2003
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th District
Case Number: 81782
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • Ohio

This case addresses the availability of insurance coverage to corporate policyholders after corporate transactions. The insurance companies had argued that certain corporate transactions eliminate insurance coverage. The Ohio Court of Appeals disagreed in a significant opinion. They held that the insured was entitled to benefits…
Glanton (Alcoa) and Mackner vs. AdvancePCS Health, LP
Year: 2003
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 04-15328
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • Arizona

Participants and Beneficiaries suing on behalf of an ERISA plan under 502(a) (2) should be able to seek money from the plan in the same manner as a fiduciary. Petition for rehearing.
Gilbert, Bill vs. Alta Health & Life Insurance and Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance
Year: 2001
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
Case Number: 01-10829-GG
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • Alabama

Scope of ERISA preemption after Unum Life Insurance v. Ward. United Policyholders argued that remedial state statutes regulate insurance and should not be pre-empted by ERISA.
George, Albert and Pearl, Karen Miller & Steven Jackson v. Guaranty National Insurance Company
Year: 1996
Court: Kentucky Supreme Court
Case Number: 96-SC-512-D
Issue:
  • Fairly Debatable Standard
State:
  • Kentucky

Insurance coverage; “fairly debatable” standard; reformation; bad faith; fiduciary duty; attorney-client privilege-standard of review
General Refractories Corp. vs. First State Insurance Company
Year: 2005
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 05-4708
Issue:
  • Commercial General Liability
State:
  • Pennsylvania

The issue on appeal in this case primarily impacts commercial policyholders. A lower court granted an insurer’s motion and dismissed a policyholder’s case because they did not sue every possible insurer that had even a remote connection to the underlying claim. If the holding is…
Gencorp Inc. vs. AIU Insurance Co.
Year: 2003
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
Case Number: 04-3244
Issue:
  • Environmental cleanup
State:
  • Ohio

Coverage for environmental cleanup should be consistent with insured’s reasonable expectations of coverage
Gamble Farm Inn, Inc vs. Selective Insurance Company
Year: 1994
Court: Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court, Lycoming County
Case Number: 92-01485
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Insured should have a reasonable expectation that the third party administrator (TPA) administering a claim has an obligation of good faith and fair dealing.