Hardy vs. Progressive Speciality Insurance Company
Year: 2002
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Case Number: 02-448
Issue:
  • Stacking
State:
  • Montana

Prohibiting stacking for policyholders who pay multiple premiums is not rationally related to making insurance affordable.
Hardt, Bridget vs. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
Year: 2009
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number: 09-448
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • United States

Based on long-standing Supreme Court precedent relating to prevailing party status under fee-shifting statutes, Social Security disability benefit claimants who win remands are entitled to see fees regardless of whether they ultimately prevail in securing an award of benefits. Given the similarity in nature of…
Hale vs. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company
Year: 2002
Court: California Court of Appeal
Case Number: A092548, A092833
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

UP filed a request for publication of a decision supporting the insured’s claim for punitive damages and the application of Kransco (no comparative bad faith) to first party cases.
Haisch, Elizabeth vs. Allstate Insurance Company
Year: 1999
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number: CV-00-0272-PR
Issue:
  • Med-pay coverage
State:
  • Arizona

An insurance company should not be allowed to sell med-pay coverage without informing insured that if they are covered by an HMO, the med-pay coverage is worthless.
Hailey vs. California Physicians’ Service dba Blue Shield of California
Year: 2006
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3
Case Number: GO35579
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • California

Health and Safety Code section 1389.3 was designed to stop the practice of post-claims underwriting. Blue Shield should not be allowed to engage in post-claims underwriting and rescind its policy when it fails to sufficiently investigate and turns a blind eye to information it either…
Gulf Insurance Company v. Transatlantic Reinsurance, et al.
Year: 2003
Court:
Case Number: New York Supreme Court, Appelate Division, First Department
Issue:
  • Exclusions
State:
  • New York

The purpose of UP’s brief was to educate the court on a wide range of insurance policy exclusions that are creating claims disputes.
Groshong, Joel C., Huth, Joann and Gary vs. Mutual Enumclaw Insurance Company
Year: 1996
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Case Number: S43912; CA No. A89325; TC No. 9407-04901
Issue:
  • Doctrine of insurability; occurence
State:
  • Oregon

Doctrine of insurability; personal injury; occurrence.
LA Sound USA, Inc., et al vs. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company
Year: 2008
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S159342
Issue:
  • Rescission
State:
  • California

Letter brief supporting Petition for Review. The underlying decision improperly provides the insurer with a means to rescind policies and thereby avoid its policy obligations without first demonstrating that the insured intended to defraud the insurer. Furthermore, allowing rescission of the policy without restitution of…
Kwikset Corp. vs. S.C. (Benson),
Year: 2008
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S171845
Issue:
  • Standing
State:
  • California

Petition for Review: Under Kwikset the courts will not be open to challenge a falsely advertised product unless the plaintiff also alleges and proves a defect in the product, or that cheaper alternatives were available, or that the product was not “worth” what the consumer…
Kvaerner Metals vs. Commercial Union
Year: 2003
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Reasonable Expectations of Coverage
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Reasonable expectations of coverage; rules of interpretation; duty of good faith and fair dealing
Kuwahara vs. 20th Century Insurance
Year: 1998
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S083217
Issue:
  • Statute of Limitations
State:
  • California

The Statute of Limitations should not be invoked to deny coverage when the untimeliness of the claim was based on the insurance company’s inadequate investigation and misrepresentations regarding coverage.
Kransco vs. American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company
Year: 1998
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S062139
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

An insurance company can no longer use the affirmative defense of comparative bad faith to escape liability for bad faith claims handling practices. Although this is a third party case, the reasoning has been applied to first party cases as well. See Hale v. Provident…
Koken vs. Legion & Villanova Insurance
Year: 2002
Court:
Case Number: 204, 205, 211, 212, MAP, Pennsylvania. 2003
Issue:
  • Reinsurance
State:
  • Pennsylvania

A reinsurer’s obligation to make payments to the insured does not diminish after insolvency.
Knotts vs. Zurich Insurance Company
Year: 2004
Court: Kentucky Supreme Court
Case Number: 000-400
Issue:
  • Continuing Duty
State:
  • Kentucky

Insurance Company has a continuing duty of good faith and fair dealing after a lawsuit has been filed.
Ketzner vs. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company
Year: 2003
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 03-4870
Issue:
  • RICO
State:
  • New Jersey

Post complaint bad faith, RICO violations
Kent Farms, Inc. vs. Zurich Insurance Company
Year: 1998
Court: Washington State Supreme Court
Case Number: 67635-6
Issue:
  • Interpretation of coverage
State:
  • Washington

Insurance companies cannot abrogate their insurance policies by applying in practice a more restrictive interpretation of coverage than what was represented to the insurance commissioners in order to obtain approval of the language of the policy and associated premiums.
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company vs. Rodgers, Tina
Year: 2002
Court: Kentucky Supreme Court
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Kentucky

Punitive damages; public service nature of insurance
Kazi, Zubair and Khatija vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
Year: 1999
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: B089804
Issue:
  • Property Damage
State:
  • California

An easement must be considered tangible property and injury there from must be covered under “property damage.”