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 ManifestationIncontestability 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 UpgradesGuaranteed 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.
Wixon vs. Amica Mutual Insurance Company Year: 1995 Court: California Court of Appeal, 1st District Case Number: A068078 Issue: Calculation of deductible in an earthquake claim State: California Opposition to request for depublication.
Willow Inn, Inc. vs. Public Service Mutual Insurance Company Year: 2003 Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit Case Number: 03-2837 Issue: Punitive Damages State: Pennsylvania A punitive damage award that exceeds the Campbell ratio of 9:1 does not violate substantive due process.
Whitehead, Carrie and State Farm Auto Mobile vs. American Coachworks, Inc. Year: 2001 Court: Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal Case Number: 2002-CA-0027 Issue: Auto insurance State: Louisiana Auto owners and insurance consumers need protection under their insurance policies that work performed on damaged vehicles by body repair shops, at the request of vehicle owners and in conformance with the direction provided by insurance companies of the vehicles, will be covered expenses according…
Williams et al. vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, and Louisiana Property Insurance Corporation Year: 2006 Court: U.S. District Court, Louisiana Eastern District Case Number: 07-00247-CA, 06-2919 Issue: Ambiguity State: Louisiana The anti-concurrent causation language upon which Defendants rely has already been deemed ambiguous as a matter of law by another Federal Court addressing similar arguments raised by Defendants. Tuepker v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2006 WL 1442489 (S. D. Miss.). Furthermore, Defendants’ position…
Western Alliance Insurance Company vs. Gill, Jarnail Singh Year: 1996 Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Case Number: SJC-07506 Issue: Pollution Exclusion and Coverages State: Massachusetts
Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. Year: 2010 Court: California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles Case Number: BC300142 Issue: Insurance ExchangesSettlement of Class Action State: California Proposed settlement of a class action in relation to insurance exchanges in which the unclaimed funds would revert back to the culpable insurer and in which the attorney’s fees were unfairly high in relation to the expected actual reimbursements to class members.
Fluor Corp. , et. al. v. Superior Court Of The State Of California, County Of Orange Year: 2010 Court: California Supreme Court Case Number: S. 196592 Issue: Anti-assignment Clause State: California Overly strong and incredibly broad interpretation of the anti-assignment language that the insurer was trying to invoke. Had the insurer’s interpretation been accepted, insurers could deny the transfer of any CGL policy to any successor in interest, a conclusion that would drastically affect the worth…
PMB Nutritionals v. Lexington Ins. Co., et al. Year: 2010 Court: Virginia Supreme Court Case Number: 110669 Issue: Pollution Exclusion and Coverages State: Virginia Claim denied on the grounds that the occurrence was excluded as pollution. UP argued that the exclusion applies to industrial pollution of the environment, as obviated by representations made to regulators.