Salem Suede, Inc. vs Zion Realty Corporation
Year: 1997
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Massachusetts
Case Number: No. 96-13184-JNF, 96-14692-JN
Issue:
  • Insurer's statutory liabilities to third parties
State:
  • Massachusetts

Insurance companies which have allegedly violated their independent duty of good faith and fair dealing to innocent injured third party claimants cannot be allowed to misuse the bankruptcy process to escape potential statutory liability to third parties.
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company vs. Brother International Corporation D/B/A Brother Mall
Year: 2006
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 07-3886
Issue:
State:
  • New Jersey
St. Paul Fire & Marine vs. McCormik & Baxter Creosoting Company
Year: 1998
Court: Supreme Court of Oregon
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Exclusions
State:
  • Oregon

Polluter’s exclusion and use of extrinsic evidence to prove coverage
St. Joe Minerals Corporation vs. Zurich Insurance
Year: 1998
Court: Fourth Appellate District, California
Case Number: 697526
Issue:
  • Clean up costs as damages
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California
Safeway Insurance Co. vs. Guerrero
Year: 2003
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number: CV-04-0146-PR; Court of Appeals No. 1-CA-CV 02- 0661
Issue:
  • Reasonable settlement agreement without the insurer's permission
State:
  • Arizona

When an insurer has failed in some respect to fulfill a legal duty to its insured, the insured can enter into a reasonable settlement agreement without the insurer’s permission.
Safeco Insurance Company vs. Parks
Year: 2007
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District
Case Number: B199364 (consolidated with B200267)
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Disclosure Requirement—Under 10 Cal. Code Regs. Section 2695.4(a) mandates that when a claim is made to the insurer, the insurer must “disclose . . . all benefits, coverage, time limits or other provisions of any insurance policy issued by that insurer that may apply to…
Rush Prudential HMO vs. Moran, Debra
Year: 2000
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number: 00-1021
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • United States

ERISA’S saving clause must defeat a claim that the law is pre-empted because it provides a remedy other than those set forth in ERISA section 502.
Round Rock Plaza Venture and Robert Tiemann vs. Maryland Ins. Co.
Year: 1995
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District
Case Number: 03-95-00108-CV
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Texas
Rosen, George vs. State Farm General Insurance Company
Year: 2002
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S108308
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • California

Imminent collapse must be covered under the collapse coverage section otherwise the result is unconscionable.
TRB Investments vs. Fireman’s Fund
Year: 2005
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: F045816
Issue:
  • Interpretation of "under construction" exclusion
State:
  • California

The Court’s interpretation of the “under construction” exception to the exclusion to apply only to the new construction of a building and not to the renovation of an existing building violates California law in numerous ways.
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.