Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. United States Filter Corporation
Year: 2005
Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
Case Number: 49A02-064-CV-00289
Issue:
  • Successor Insurers
State:
  • Indiana

This case involves occurrence-based insurance policies that the various insurance company defendants (collectively, the “Insurers”) sold to U.S. Filter’s predecessor, which require that the Insurers defend and indemnify U.S. Filter for losses that occurred prior to U.S. Filter’s succession to the policy.
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co vs. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London
Year: 2000
Court: New York State Court of Appeals
Case Number: 2000-2299, 2000-2300
Issue:
  • No "hindsight" underwriting
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • New York

Reinsurance companies should not be free from oversight and regulation. Lloyds should not be allowed to engage in “hindsight” underwriting to change “loss” to “occurrence” and to insert a “proximate cause” requirement. UP’s co-amici are Fresh Air Fund, Center for Children and Families and Police…
Tran, Ngoc M., dba Shing Fat Supermarket vs. Farmers Group, Truck Insurance Exchange
Year: 2002
Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District, Division 3
Case Number: A093437
Issue:
  • Farmers should not be able to avoid liability by claiming that it only serves as “attorney in fact.”
State:
  • California
Town of Harrison and Village of Harrison v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. Pittsburgh, PA
Year: 1995
Court: New York State Court of Appeals
Case Number: 13167/92
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • New York

Absolute “pollution exclusion”; fiduciary duty; duty of good faith and fair dealing
Timmiss v. Kaiser
Year: 2004
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: Appellate Court No. ID Civil No. A102962
Issue:
  • Health Plans
State:
  • California

Letter Brief supporting petition to review. Health plans function as health insurers. If the evidence shows that insurers are requiring Policyholders to alter medications in order to take the proper dosage.Insurers are engaging in unfair business practices and are defeating the reasonable expectations of their…
TIG Insurance Company vs. Gary Smolker
Year: 1997
Court: California Superior Court, Los Angeles County
Case Number: BC 173952
Issue:
  • Good Faith and Fair Dealing
  • Markham quotes
State:
  • California
Texas Association of Counties County Government Risk Management Pool vs. Matagorda County and Keith Kilgore
Year: 1998
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: 98-0968
Issue:
  • Texas Court should not adopt holding of Buss
State:
  • Texas

The Texas Court should not adopt the anti-policyholder holdings of Buss v. Transamerica Co. 939 P.2d 766 (1977) and should not be swayed by Insurance company argument that the holding is sweeping the country.
Taurus Holdings, Inc. vs. United States Fidelity & Guaranty
Year: 2003
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Case Number: SC04-771
Issue:
  • Ambiguity
State:
  • Florida

UP requests Court affirm that the undefined insurance policy phrase “arising out of” is ambiguous and should be construed in favor of coverage.
Superior Dispatch vs. Insurance Corporation of New York
Year: 2008
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3
Case Number: B204878
Issue:
  • Notice of time to file claim
  • Statute of Limitations
State:
  • California

The insurer’s position in this appeal is that, despite its violation of Sections 2695.4 and 2695.7 of the Cal. Code of Regulations, it should not be estopped to assert the contractual limitations period. The plain meaning of the regulations commands an insurer to give the…
Sunbeam Corporation vs. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Year: 1999
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: 1122 PG97
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Pollution exclusion; estoppel; insured’s reasonable expectations of coverage
Strawn, Mark vs. Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, Mid-Century Insurance Company and Truck Insurance Exchange
Year: 2008
Court: Supreme Court of Oregon
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Oregon

In order to assure that a punitive damages award fulfills the purpose of deterrence and retribution, due process considerations for assessing the constitutional validity of a punitive damages award must include consideration of the defendant’s wealth.
Strandley vs. CAN Insurance Company
Year: 1998
Court: Washington State Supreme Court
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Statute of Limitations
State:
  • Washington
Stonewall Insurance Company vs. Asbestos Claims Management Corporation
Year: 1994
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Case Number: 93-7314 (L)
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Estoppel
State:
  • New York
Stone, Jonathan and Roberta, vs. Continental Insurance Company
Year: 1995
Court: New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Department 2
Case Number: Docket no. 95-11376
Issue:
  • Insurance Nullification
State:
  • New York

Tutorial; insurance nullification; insurance companies as fiduciaries; post-loss underwriting; Insurance as a defective product.
State of California vs. Superior Court
Year: 2005
Court: Fourth Appellate District, California
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • California

Application of the “pollution Exclusion” in liability insurance policies, regarding allocation of burden of proof as between covered and non-covered issues; regulatory estoppel; (regulatory admissions)
State of California ex rel. Nee, Linda and Metz, John vs. Unum Provident Corporation, et al.
Year: 2005
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 5
Case Number: B183487
Issue:
  • Qui Tam
State:
  • California

Amicus brief filed jointly in this case by UP and the Consumer Attorneys of California. Supports the right of private citizens to bring qui tam actions seeking redress for unfair claim practices against insurance companies.
State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company vs. Campbell, Curtis B., et al.
Year: 2002
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number: 01-1289
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • United States

UP argued that an award of punitive damages should be linked to reprehensibility of conduct. The Court should not establish a bright line ratio. UP reminded the Court that punitive damages serve the purpose of deterrence from corporate misconduct and should be large enough, depending…
Simon Wrecking Company Inc., et al. vs. AIU Insurance Company, et al.
Year: 2007
Court: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Case Number: 03-CV3231
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Interpretation of pollution exclusion clause. UP urged the Court to interpret the “sudden and accidental” exclusion in favor of coverage and should estop CNA (the defendant) from applying the exclusion in anyway that is inconsistent with its representation to the State Insurance regulators in 1970…