Julian vs. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company
Year: 2005
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S109735
Issue:
  • Efficient Proximate Cause/Predominant Cause
  • Proximate Cause/Concurrent Causation
State:
  • California

UP took the position that the scope of landslide exclusion should not encompass damage from a tree that crashed into a home. In other words, for cases involving multiple perils (perhaps one covered and one not) insurers should not be allowed to “unwind” the “predominant…
Jones, Janet and Jones, Terry v. Allstate Insurance Co et al
Year: 1999
Court: Washington State Court of Appeals
Case Number: 46005-6-1
Issue:
  • Conflict of Interest
State:
  • Washington

Allstate cannot be allowed to deceive policyholders and third party claimants by failing to inform them they may be in an adversarial position with the insurance company and that the insurance company has no obligation to protect the victim.
Johnson, Greg et al. vs. Ford Motor Company
Year: 2004
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S121723
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

The permissible ratio of punitive to compensatory damages after Campbell should not be limited to a bright line ratio.
Johnson Controls vs. Employers Insurance of Wausau
Year: 2002
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Case Number: 01-1193
Issue:
  • Scope of coverage in CGL policy
State:
  • Wisconsin

CGL coverage by a utility must include costs of clean up for historical property damage including environmental response costs.
Jewell vs. Life Insurance Company of America
Year: 2007
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number: 07-1121
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • United States

Denial of disability benefits; ERISA preemption and standard of review.
Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, Inc. et al, vs. United Health Group, Inc. et al.
Year: 2006
Court: U.S. District Court, New York Eastern District
Case Number: Civil Case No. 07-0506 (SJ)
Issue:
  • Arbitration
State:
  • New York

Request to Intervene. It is unfortunate and unfair that mandatory arbitration is growing rapidly as a requirement for patients to receive necessary medical services. This Court should refuse to compel arbitration and allow the instant case to move forward to trial.
Iowa Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund Board vs. American States Insurance Company
Year: 1995
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Case Number: 96-510
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Iowa

Polluter’s Exclusion; drafting history
International Recovery Corporation vs. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA
Year: 1994
Court: Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
Case Number: 95-1852
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Florida

Absolute polluter’s exclusion; inconsistent coverage positions
Insurance Commissioner of CA vs. Golden Eagle Insurance Company
Year: 2003
Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 3
Case Number: A104076
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • California
Met Life vs. Glenn, Wanda
Year: 2007
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number: 06-923
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • United States

United Policyholders’ brief addressed the first question certified for review by the United States Supreme Court: “Whether an administrator that both evaluates and pays claims under a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., is operating under…
Mesa Operating Company vs. California Union Insurance Company
Year: 1997
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District
Case Number: 05-06-00986-CV
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Texas

The evidence presented supports the conclusion that the insurance industry represented that the State Board of Insurance understood the “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion did not reduce existing coverage for pollution damages that were neither expected nor intended.
Merrick vs. The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, et al
Year: 2008
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 08-17742
Issue:
  • Punitive damage award that only slap an insurer on the wrist will fail to deter reprehensible behavior.
State:
  • Nevada

In situations where insurers ignore the law and abandon the principles of good faith and fair dealing in a persistent manner, meaningful punitive damage awards are justified to temper the behavior of a member of this quasi-public industry. A punitive damage award must be sufficient…
Medina v. Safe-Guard Products International, Inc.
Year: 2007
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3
Case Number: G038816
Issue:
  • Letter Brief Request for Depublication; B & P17200 case dealing with Unlicensed Insurers.
State:
  • California

Publication threatens to undermine the enforcement of California’s insurance licensing laws in two ways: 1) purchasing unlicensed insurance does not constitute “injury fact” a necessary perquisite for standing for private plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit under Business and Professions Code section 17200. This would, in…
Medill vs. Westport Insurance Corporation
Year: 2006
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: Second District Case Nos: B17007 & B182442
Issue:
  • D & O Liability
State:
  • California

Volunteer Board of Directors should be covered under D & O policy and the Court should not so broadly construe the exclusion for breach of contract so as to apply to tort claims because the lawsuit remotely related to the corporation’s breach of its bond…
Medical Society of the State of New York vs. Serio, Gregory
Year: 2001
Court: New York State Supreme Court
Case Number: 116519/01
Issue:
  • Limitation of time to bring claim
State:
  • New York

UP supported the challenge to a regulation shortening the amount of time injured parties have in which to bring an insurance claim.
Medallion Industries, Inc. vs. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 1996
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 97-35317
Issue:
  • Doctrine of insurability
State:
  • Oregon

Doctrine of insurability; Discrimination; accident.
McKendry, Steven vs. General American Life Insurance Company
Year: 2000
Court: U.S. District Court, Arizona
Case Number: CV 96-0754-PHX-PGR
Issue:
  • Confidentiality of internal documents
State:
  • Arizona

UP sought to intervene in an action to unseal exhibits that demonstrated Paul Revere’s motives to deny claims. UP was allowed to intervene but Court would not unseal documents. UP appeared with Consumer Action and the Insurance Company Accountability Network.
Mathis vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Year: 1998
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 98-36001
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Washington

Court should unequivocally declare that the termination of an insurance company employee for refusal to engage in bad faith conduct contravenes a clear mandate of public policy and subjects the insurance company employer to liability in tort for wrongful discharge.