Foreign Car Center vs. Travelers Indemnity
Year: 1997
Court: United States District Court, Massachusetts
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Massachusetts

Drafting history; polluter’s exclusions; expected or intended
Fluoroware, Inc. vs. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies
Year: 1995
Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals
Case Number: C3-95-1809; No. CX-95-1810
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • Minnesota

Insurance companies should not be allowed to keep information supporting coverage from the Courts of their policyholders. Depublication of pro-policyholder decisions should not be condoned.
Fleming vs. USAA
Year: 1996
Court:
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Oregon

UP filed a petition supporting review urging that the key definition of “pollutants” employed in ithe subject nsurance policies were so overbroad as to be meaningless.
First State Insurance Company vs. Minnesota Mining Manufacturing Company
Year: 1997
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Case Number: C4-97-1872, CO-97-2257
Issue:
  • “disappearing decisions”; confidentiality orders
State:
  • Minnesota
First American Title Insurance Company vs. Superior Court
Year: 2006
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3
Case Number: B194004 (2007)
Issue:
  • Discovery
State:
  • California

Request for depublication. Plaintiffs must be allowed pre-certification discovery in class actions arising out of insurance marketing and underwriting practices which often involve damages to policyholders that are too small to warrant individual action.
Ieyoub, Richard vs. The American Tobacco Company
Year: 1997
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
Case Number: 97-31222
Issue:
  • Arbitration
State:
  • Louisiana
Hyundai Motor America vs. National Union Fire Insurance Company
Year: 2008
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 08-56527
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

The district court erroneously held that “advertising injury” insured under the CGL Policies at issue did not include “an injury caused by patent infringement even if that injury occurs during the course of an advertising activity.” The district court also failed to properly apply the…
Humana Inc. and Humana Health Insurance of Nevada, Inc. vs. Forsyth, Mary
Year: 1998
Court:
Case Number: 525 US 299
Issue:
  • RICO
State:
  • United States

Rico Claims; unfair trade practices
Erie Insurance Exchange vs. Hollock
Year: 2003
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
Case Number: 67 MAP 2005 (Supreme Court), 298 MDA 2002 (Superior Court)
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania a violation of the Unfair Practices Act should be relevant evidence of bad faith. An insurance company’s violations of its own internal guidelines, manuals and procedures is relevant evidence of bad faith. Case upholds post –Campbell ratio of compensatory to punitive damages of…
Hoffman, David vs. State of Georgia, Office of Insurance Commissioner and Oxendine, John W.
Year: 2002
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
Case Number: A04A0134
Issue:
  • Discovery
State:
  • Georgia

Brief requesting that the State of Georgia be forced to make the Insurance Commissioner’s investigative study of UnumProvident public.
Heritage Healthcare Services, Inc. et al. vs. Beacon Mutual Insurance Company et al.
Year: 2006
Court: Rhode Island Superior Court
Case Number: 2002-7016
Issue:
  • Discovery
State:
  • Rhode Island

United Policyholders filed an amicus brief to educate the court on why documents and reports resulting from Market Conduction Examinations conducted by state insurance regulators are discoverable in civil litigation.
Henner, Michael and Elizabeth, vs. Gemini Insurance Co. et al
Year: 2010
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Department
Case Number: CA 09-01832 and CA 01-01833
Issue:
  • Notice-prejudice
State:
  • New York

The issue in this case was whether the lower court erred in dismissing policyholder’s claim for insurance coverage based on untimely notice by failing to consider prejudice to the insurance companies. UP argued that the notice-prejudice rule protects insurance consumers from untimely forfeiture. UP also…
Henkel Corporation vs. Lloyd’s of London
Year: 2002
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S0982427
Issue:
  • Commercial General Liability
State:
  • California

The fundamental characteristic of a general liability policy (CGL) providing coverage on the basis of an occurrence is that the policy never expires even after the policy expires. If the occurrence causing the damage took place in the policy period, coverage should be provided regardless…
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company vs. SCI Liquidating Corporation
Year: 1998
Court: Georgia Supreme Court
Case Number: S99Q1575
Issue:
  • Umbrella Coverage
State:
  • Georgia

UP argues that the purpose of an umbrella general liability policy is to provide coverage above a (nominal retained limit) for claims deemed not to be covered by the underlying CGL policies.
Haworth, Randal vs. Superior Court of California
Year: 2008
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S165906
Issue:
  • Disclosure
State:
  • California

Neutral arbitrators, as well as sitting judges, should be required to disclose the facts and circumstances of a previous censure. The disclosure requirements for neutral arbitrators is critically important because it affects the ability of insurance consumers to obtain a fair and reasoned recovery of…
Harrison, Francie vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
Year: 2002
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit
Case Number: Docket No. 05-1577
Issue:
  • Disability benefits and definitions
State:
  • New Hampshire

In absence of definition of “crime” in the policy, disability benefits should not be denied when first time offense was considered a “violation” and not a “crime.”
Harris, Louise vs. First Unum Life Insurance Company
Year: 2004
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Case Number: 05-4265
Issue:
  • Public service nature of insurance; insurance principles
State:
  • New York

UNUM denied claim; tutorial—public service nature of insurance; insurance principles.
Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company vs. Buzz Off Insect Shield
Year: 2008
Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
Case Number: 272A08
Issue:
  • Advertising Injury
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • North Carolina

The policyholder’s ultimate liability has no bearing on the determination of whether an insurance company must defend the policyholder against a suit for “personal injury advertising injury.” Whether an insurance company has a duty to defend depends solely on the allegations contained in the underlying…