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…
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company vs. Simmons, James and Cynthia
Year: 1996
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: D-4095
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Texas

UP brief supports Court of Appeals decision holding that (1) insurance company acted in bad faith; (2) the insurance company failed to show the policyholders burned their own home and (3) punitive damage award of two million was not excessive.
West American Insurance Company vs. Freeman, Mark R.
Year: 1995
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S049306
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

Insurance Company’s duty of good faith and fair dealing with its policyholder should continue into litigation and should not be limited to the circumstances surrounding the insurance coverage litigation.
Weiss, Richard D. vs. UnumProvident
Year: 2004
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 05-5428
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • Pennsylvania

UP argued that the Supreme Court has held that RICO enforcement does not conflict with ERISA or the McCarran-Ferguson Act and that UnumProvident’s history of reprehensible bad faith claim handling, evidenced by governmental sanctions and numerous court decisions, requires that Plaintiffs be allowed their day…
Watts Industries, Inc. vs. Zurich American Insurance Company
Year: 2003
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 4
Case Number: B162067 (LASC Case No. 245144 consolidated with Case No. BC 251718)
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

Insurer must offer a defense if there is a potential for coverage of any part of underlying claim.
Waters vs. United States Automobile Association
Year: 1995
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: BC 68468
Issue:
  • Emotional Distress
State:
  • California

Insurers duties re: property damage claims and insureds’ right to recover for emotional distress caused by bad faith conduct.
Watanabe vs. Blue Shield of California
Year: 2007
Court: California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 8
Case Number: 2nd Civ. No.B 195725 (BC 324008)
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

Blue Shield of California tried to shield itself from bad faith liability by claiming that Maria Watanabe’s benefits were denied by a medical group which had a contract with Blue Shield. But California law is clear: an insurer cannot delegate its implied covenant duties. The…
Wagner vs. Eire Ins.
Year: 2002
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Reasonable Expectations of Coverage
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Gasoline station owner’s reasonable expectation of coverage for damage caused by gasoline should control.
Vu vs. Prudential Prop. & Casualty Insurance Company
Year: 2000
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S078271
Issue:
  • Statute of Limitations
State:
  • California