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.
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 OmissionsMake-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 InterestReservation 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.
Arceneaux, et al. v. Amstar Corp., et al. Year: 2010 Court: Louisiana Supreme Court Case Number: No. 2010-c-2329 Issue: Duty to Defend State: Louisiana May an insurer enforce the coverage limiting provisions of its insurance policies that it breached upon breaching its respective duties to defend and indemnify?
