Amicus Briefs Archive - Page 2 of 37 - United Policyholders

Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Rebecca Hughes

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Case Number: SC2024-00025

Late notice

Florida

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders weighs in on the issue of retroactivity and late notice, arguing that under Florida’s two-prong test, a statute can only be applied retroactively if (1) it contains clear language indicating legislative intent for retroactively application and (2) such retroactivity is constitutionally…

Michael Cloud v. The Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan

Court: United States Supreme Court

Case Number: 24-61

ERISA

Texas

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders argues that the Supreme Court should grant certiorari to make clear that in the context of ERISA claims, federal courts are not required to give deference to fiduciaries who have denied benefit claims without engaging in a full and fair claims process.…

Spectrum Retirement Communities, LLC, et al. v. Continental Casualty Company

Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Case Number: 2024CA34

COVID-19

Colorado

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. UP argues that decades of case law demonstrate that the presence of physically hazardous substances can qualify as “physical loss or damage” to…

Tulalip Tribes of Washington v. Lexington Insurance Company

Court: Court of Appeals Division 1

Case Number: 861158

COVID-19

Washington

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19.

In re: Hill Hotel Owner v. Hanover Insurance Company

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Case Number: 2024SA113

Attorney-Client and Work-Product Privilege

Colorado

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders weighs in on the important issue of whether attorney-client and work-product privileges attach to an insurer’s claims handling materials when such documents were created by or sent to/from attorneys working on behalf of an insurance company. United Policyholder’s argues…

NIBCO vs. Starr Indemnity and Liability Co., et al

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Indiana

United Policyholders submitted an amicus brief on behalf of an insured who lost out on the possibility of coverage due to an inadvertent error and technicality. Importantly, the insurance company was aware of the error but declined to bring it to the attention of the…

Texas Windstorm Insurance Association v. Stephen Pruski

Court: Texas Supreme Court

Case Number: 23-0447

Jurisdiction

Texas

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders addresses a jurisdictional question with far-reaching implications. The issue is whether a provision of Texas Insurance Code Section 2210.575(e) renders a decision made by a Texas District Court judge who was not appointed by the proper MDL panel void.…

Susan Dow v. Safeco Insurance Company of America.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Number: 23-2641

Actual Cash Value

Montana

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders addresses the critical distinction between Actual Cash Value (ACV) and Replacement Cost Value (RCV) in property insurance policies, and the rightful entitlement of policyholders to a receive full ACV payment as the minimum “floor,” irrespective of subsequent repair costs…

Westrock CP, LLC v. Lexington Insurance Company and Indian Harbor Insurance Company

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District

Case Number: 1-23-1631

Policy Interpretation

Illinois

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders addresses the novel issue of when pollution conditions should be considered “related” under a pollution legal liability policy. An insured paper mill experienced two pollution “incidents” resulting from different processes at the paper mill (the pulping of paper vs.…

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., et al.

Court: United States Supreme Court

Case Number: 22-1079

Bankruptcy

North Carolina

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders argues that an insurance company should not have the right to insert itself into the bankruptcy reorganization proceeding of its insured when the proposed reorganization has been found to be “insurance neutral.” An insurer’s attempts to gain broader…

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al. v. The Sherwin-Williams Company

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Case Number: 2023-0255

Accident/Occurrence & Intentional Acts

Ohio

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders addresses whether an insured, Sherwin-Williams, is entitled to coverage for its portion of a lead paint settlement. The coverage dispute turns on issues of whether the insured “expected or intended” property damage to occur from its sale of…

Myasnyankin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two

Case Number: A166946

Claims Handling

California

United Policyholders’ amicus brief addresses the issue of an insured’s right to video record an insurer’s participants in an examination under oath (“EUO”)proceeding. United Policyholders takes the position that Insurance Code section 2071.1, which provides the insured with the right to “record the examination proceedings…

Olympic Vista Homeowners Association v. Allstate Insurance Company

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Number: 23-3109

Notice of time to file claim

Washington

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders addresses the important issue of suit limitations clauses in insurance policies for progressive hidden damage claims. In the case the insurance policy contained a clause requiring an insured to file suit within 2 years after the loss occurred. But…

Aloha Petroleum v. National Union Fire Insurance Company

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Case Number: SCCQ-23-0000515

Duty to Defend

Hawaii

In the Aloha Petroleum case, the Hawaii Supreme Court accepted a certified question from a Hawaii Federal District Court asking: (1) For any insurance policy defining a covered “occurrence” in part as an “accident,” can an “accident” include recklessness? and (2) For an “occurrence” insurance…

North State Deli, LLC, et al v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, et al

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Case Number: 22-PA21-2

COVID-19

North Carolina

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19.

Westfield Insurance Company v. Sisterville Tank Works, Inc., et. al

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals

Case Number: 22-848

Continuous Trigger

West Virginia

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders urged West Virginia’s high court to adopt the “continuous trigger” standard for progressive injuries in occurrence based insurance policies. In October of 2023, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals issued its opinion, noting that it “greatly appreciate the…

75 Arlington Street, et. al v. Strathmore Insurance Company

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Case Number: 2023-P-0407

COVID-19

Massachusetts

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19.

Lincoln Holdings LLC, et al. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company

Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Case Number: 23-7056

COVID-19

District of Columbia

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19.