Quan vs. Truck Exchange
Year: 1998
Court: California Court of Appeal
Case Number: 5071510
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Amicus in support of request for review. Duty to Defend.
Qualcomm Inc. vs. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London
Year: 2007
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S163293
Issue:
  • Excess Insurance
State:
  • California

Letter in Support of Petition for Review. UP took that the position that where a policyholder settles with a primary insurance for less than the full amount of the policy, the policyholder may still collect from its excess insurance company if a judgment is rendered…
QBE Insurance Corporation vs. Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Association, Inc.
Year: 2008
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Case Number: SC09-441
Issue:
  • Good Faith
State:
  • Florida

This case concerns whether or not Florida law recognizes a claim for breach of the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing. Making an insurer accountable for causing additional damages that naturally flow from the breach of its mandated obligation of utmost good faith…
Powerline Oil Company, Inc. vs. Superior Court of California (Central National Fire Insurance Company)
Year: 2002
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S113295
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • California

When a policy uses the terms “suit” and “claim” in its “ultimate net loss provision, the insurer must provide coverage for a lawsuit in a court of law and other judicial proceedings.
Plastics Engineering Company vs. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 2007
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Case Number: Appeal No. 2008AP333
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Occurrence
State:
  • Wisconsin

Because the incident giving rise to liability was each individual plaintiff’s continuous or repeated exposure to asbestos and not the business decision to manufacture asbestos or a failure to protect against their alleged hazards, the only plausible way to interpret “occurrence” is that it refers…
Allstate Insurance Company vs. Pincheira
Year: 2001
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals
Case Number: 22,760
Issue:
  • Discovery
  • McKinsey documents
State:
  • New Mexico

UP opposes Allstate’s attempts to shield important documents regarding claims handling practices based on trade secrecy status. Court should allow discovery of internal documents pertaining to manner of handling claims (claims Core Process Redesign.) Secrecy allows corporate misdeeds by insurers to continue unchecked.
Pilkington North America vs. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, et al.
Year: 2004
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Case Number: 2005-0378
Issue:
  • Liability insurance follows liability by operation of law
State:
  • Ohio

Relying on the majority rule, UP supported the argument that a corporate policyholder is entitled to a defense and indemnity for pre-acquisition liabilities because liability insurance coverage follows the alleged liability by operation of law. The majority of courts have held that anti-assignment clauses do…
Philip Morris USA vs. Mayola Williams
Year: 2005
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number: 05-1256
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • United States

Review of Court’s previous decisions regarding punitive damages. The Court should not be setting substantive due process standards for punitive damage cases. Lower Courts have interpreted the Court’s opinion in Campbell V. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., as requiring a single digit ratio for…
Permanent General Assurance Corp. vs. Superior Court (Hernandez)
Year: 2003
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District
Case Number: G033269
Issue:
  • Claims Handling
  • Discovery and admissibility of evidence of pattern
State:
  • California

Request for depublication. ********* Depublication granted Nov. 2004.
Perez vs. Fire Insurance Exchange
Year: 2004
Court: California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Case Number: F043931
Issue:
  • Corporate Structure of Farmer’s Insurance Exchange
State:
  • California
Penzer, Michael, etc. vs. Transportation Insurance Company
Year: 2007
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Case Number: SC08-2068, Lower Court Case No.: 07-13827-FF
Issue:
  • Advertising Injury
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Florida

Insurance companies have a duty to defend violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) under a CGL policy’s “advertising injury” clause even when the facsimile transmission does not disseminate private information. Despite the absence of private information, an unsolicited facsimile arguably can still constitute…
Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. vs. Park-Ohio Industries, Inc.
Year: 2008
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Case Number: 2009-0104
Issue:
  • Multiple Policies
State:
  • Ohio

UP joined with the Ohio Manufacturers Association (OMA), a statewide association that employs the majority of the 610,000 men and women that work in manufacturing in the state of Ohio. Together UP and OMA presented the policyholder’s perspective that when a claim triggers multiple policies,…
Penn-America vs. Mike’s Tailoring
Year: 2004
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S131639
Issue:
  • Proximate and concurrent causation
State:
  • California

Scope of water damage exclusion involving issues of proximate and concurrent causation.
Pendergest-Holt, Laura, Stanford, R. Allen, Lopez, Gilbert Jr. and Kuhrt, Mark vs. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London and Arch Specialty Insurance Company
Year: 2009
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
Case Number: 10-20069 (US 5th Cir. Court of Appeals) 4:09-cv-03712 (US Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. Tex.)
Issue:
  • Duty to pay defense costs
State:
  • Texas

The application of the “eight corners” rule to an insurers duty to advance defense costs in a “Directors and Officers” context. UP presented arguments to the court to show how the carriers position would defeat the purpose of D&O coverage.
Peerless Lighting Company v. American Motorists Ins. Co.
Year: 1999
Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District
Case Number: AO 82975, AO83487, AO84373
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Request to Grant Petition for Review. Duty to Defend Case. UP supported the position that the duty to defend attaches as soon as there is a possibility that the allegations of the complaint fall within the coverage of the policy.
Simon, Lionel vs. Sao Paulo U.S. Holding Company, Inc.
Year: 2003
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S121933
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • California

A careful reading of Campbell shows that the Supreme Court did not lay down a single digit ratio for punitive damages and the decision was not intended to deprive states of the ability to exercise their legitimate state interests in deterring and punishing unlawful conduct…
Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. vs. City of Desert Hot Springs et al.
Year: 2002
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 02-57082, 03-55394
Issue:
  • Exclusions
  • Poor draftsmanship
State:
  • California

Where an insurer chooses to draft an exclusion that does not clearly and unambiguously apply to a specific claim, it cannot argue, after the fact, for a contrary interpretation. Poor draftsmanship cannot support an insurer’s argument for a narrow underwriting construction of coverage.
Sigelman et al. vs. Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 2007
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 1
Case Number: D050783
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • California

Letter Brief supporting petition for review. Malpractice insurer rescinded policy for alleged misrepresentation in the application. The policy had been in force for seventeen years. Trial court entered judgment in favor of the policyholder. The Appellate Court reversed.