Truck Insurance Exchange vs. Superior Court of California
Year: 1997
Court: California Court of Appeal
Case Number: Civ. No. B117294, Court of Appeals, California, No. BC090825, c/w BC135685
Issue:
  • Plain Meaning
State:
  • California

Tutorial: contract v. tort; plain meaning as ordinary and popular meaning; legally obligate
Tri-Star Lodging, Inc. vs. Arch Specialty Insurance Company
Year: 2005
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
Case Number: 06-13989-HH
Issue:
  • Right to Jury Trial
State:
  • Florida

The right to a jury trial as it applies to a claim of first-party breach of contract. The decision of the lower court should be reversed as an assault on the right to jury trial.
Trinity Universal Insurance Company vs. Cowan, Nicole
Year: 1995
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: 95-1160
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Texas

Tutorial; insurance lore; duty of good faith and fair dealing continues through litigation; occurrences; lawyers as underwriters; insurance company’s duty to disclose.
State of California v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, Allstate
Year: 2006
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: Supreme Court Case No. S149988, CA Court of Appeal case no. E037627
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • California
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London
Year: 2009
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: 08-0246
Issue:
  • Exclusions
State:
  • Texas

The Court held that the standard “contractual liability” exclusion found in the CGL policy essentially is a “breach of contract” exclusion applicable anytime a liability defense, e.g., statute of limitations or economic loss rule, eliminates a negligence cause of action, leaving only a breach of…
American and Foreign Insurance Company et. al. vs. Jerry’s Sport Center, Inc. et. al.
Year: 2007
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: 88 MAP 2008
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Pennsylvania

A claim is potentially covered, thus triggering the duty to defend, when there is uncertainty as to coverage. Once this uncertainty is eliminated through a declaratory judgment action it does not retroactively eliminate the ambiguity that triggered the insurer’s duty to defend during the period…
City of Chesapeake Virginia v. State Self-Insurers
Year: 2004
Court: Virginia Supreme Court
Case Number: 51986
Issue:
  • Exclusions
State:
  • Virginia

History is squarely on the side of policyholders fighting against over reaching and unreasonable applications of so-called absolute total pollution exclusions. United Policyholders urged the Court to ensure that representations made by insurance companies as to the meaning of exclusions when adopted remain the standard…
State of California v. Continental Insurance Company
Year: 2008
Court: California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 2
Case Number: E041425
Issue:
  • Environmental Liabilities
State:
  • California
Amelia Island Company v. Amerisure Insurance Company
Year: 2009
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
Case Number: 10-10960G
Issue:
  • Property Damage
State:
  • Florida

Whether the negligent installation of nondefective materials and components constitutes covered “property damage” under the standard CGL policy.
Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila , Juan
Year: 2003
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Number: 02-1845 and 03-83
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • United States

ERISA not intended to preempt state laws regulating insurance, Outcome: U.S.Supreme Court holds, once again, that ERISA preempts everything,
Hussey Copper, Ltd. v. Arrowood Indemnity Company, f/k/a Royal Insurance Company of America
Year: 2009
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 09-4037
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Pennsylvania

UP’s letter addressed the meaning of the absolute pollution exclusion and how it affects policyholders throughout the nation. Insurance policies are often the only viable source of defense and indemnification. The absolute pollution exclusion undercuts coverage that policyholders had bought and relied upon. If misapplied,…
Cussler v. Crusader Entertainment, LLC
Year: 2009
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S181428
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

UP argued that the Court of Appeal’s reversal of a jury verdict threatens the most basic expectation of a contracting party—that the other party will not act in bad faith to deprive it of the benefit of its bargain. This issue is of particular importance…
Abdelhamid v. Fire Insurance Exchange
Year: 2009
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: C059098
Issue:
  • Proof of Loss
State:
  • California

The ruling was against a homeowner whose home was destroyed in a fire. UP weighed in to request depublication of a CA. Court of Appeal opinion in case where Farmers Insurance Exchange denied a total fire loss claim on the grounds that the homeowner had…
Hameid, Mohammed vs. National Fire Insurance of Hartford
Year: 2001
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S104157
Issue:
  • Advertising Injury
State:
  • California

In the context of an advertising injury when insured is a small business, the coverage must be broadly defined to encompass the activities of a small business.
Galanty vs. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company
Year: 1999
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S073678
Issue:
  • First Manifestation
  • Incontestability clause
State:
  • California

The two year incontestability clause in a policy cannot be contradicted by a “First Manifest” provision under the definition of sickness or any other language in the policy.
Bischel vs. Fire Insurance Exchange
Year: 1991
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: SO24563
Issue:
  • Code Upgrades
  • Guaranteed Replacement Cost
State:
  • California

In a letter supporting a petition for review, UP urged the California Supreme Court to determine whether the appellate court’s holding really does support insurers’ position that guaranteed replacement cost policies do not include coverage for code upgrades. UP was contacted by thousands of homeowners…
American Games, Inc. vs. Trade Products, Inc.
Year: 1997
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 97-35275
Issue:
State:
  • Washington
Zilisch, Kimberly vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Year: 1999
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number: CV-98-0535-PR
Issue:
  • Fairly Debatable Standard
State:
  • Arizona

UP challenged the “fairly debatable” standard as the standard to be used for determining a bad faith denial of coverage. “Fairly debatable” is a standard that favors insurance companies.