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.
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 Exchanges
  • Settlement 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.
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. TD Banknorth Insurance Agency Inc.
Year: 2010
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Case Number: S.C. 18796
Issue:
  • Errors and Omissions
  • Make-Whole Doctrine
State:
  • Connecticut

Priority of recovery following assignment. The insured was made to pay certain fines and incurred a deductible on the insurance coverage. Upon recovery of funds by the insurer following subrogation, the insured tried to recover the deductible prior to the insurer being made whole. UP…
Hakimfer v. ROC Design
Year: 2010
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5
Case Number: SC 106414
Issue:
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Reservation of Rights
State:
  • California

Counsel provided by the insurer under duty to defend failed to disclose to the insured the potential for a conflict of interest, in violation of attorney professional rules of conduct.
In re: Universal Underwriters Insurance Company
Year: 2009
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: 10-0238
Issue:
  • Appraisal
State:
  • Texas

This case will have a substantial impact on the rights of Texas policyholders to be promptly and properly compensated by their insurance companies, and will also impact the consistency of court decisions.
Diebold, Incorporated v. Continental Casualty Company
Year: 2009
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 10-3184
Issue:
  • Discovery
State:
  • New Jersey

The discovery provision at issue in this litigation is precisely the type of specific provision intended to avoid ambiguity and, therefore, uncertainty. The trial court lost sight of the provision’s intent and ignored the language in the policy by attributing discovery to something other than…
Women’s Integrated Network, Inc. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Company
Year: 2011
Court: U.S. District Court, New York Eastern District
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Blanket holding that an Employment Practices Liability policy does not cover contractual damages.
State:
  • New York

UP addressed the Court’s blanket holding that an Employment Practices Liability insurance policy does not cover contractual damages, as this holding has broad implications for policyholders in New York and elsewhere.
MacKay v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (21st Century National)
Year: 2009
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: B220469
Issue:
  • Insurance rate filings
State:
  • California

UP sought to depublish the MacKay opinion on the grounds that it undermines the essential function of civil lawsuits to the law enforcement activities performed by the California Department of Insurance.
Desert Mountain Properties Limited v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Year: 2010
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number: CV-10-0339-PR
Issue:
  • Commercial General Liability
State:
  • Arizona

The issue is whether contract-tort distinction should apply to control coverage under a standard form commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy and what is the intended scope of the contractual liability exclusion in a CGL policy.