Miller v. Hartford Life Insurance Co.
Year: 2010
Court: Supreme Court of Hawaii
Case Number: SCCQ-11-0000329
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
  • Emotional Distress
State:
  • Hawaii

A showing of bad faith is not contingent on the presence of any economic loss. Rather, UP argued, a claim of bad faith should rest on improper claim-handling alone.
Kenneth John Nardelli and Tammy M. Nardelli, v. Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Year: 2011
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number: CV-12-0180-PR
Issue:
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Arizona

Should a jury verdict and Court of Appeals finding of clear and convincing evidence to support a punitive damages award result in a reduction of the award simply because it was in excess of a single digit ratio to compensatory damages?
U.S. Fidelity And Guarantee Co. V. U.S. Sports Specialty Ass’n
Year: 2011
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Case Number: WL 192793
Issue:
  • Duty to Settle
State:
  • Utah

In this case an insurer went after its insured to recoup monies it had paid (over policy limits) as part of a settlement. UP argued that because the insurer had initiated the settlement and because there was no right of restitution expressly stated in the…
Skinner v. Northrop Grumman
Year: 2011
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 10-55161
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • United States

Employees had received informational documents from their employer that alluded to certain levels of benefits (“annuity equivalent offset”). UP’s brief argued that any discrepancy between the information documents and the internal plan documents should be resolved in favor of the beneficiary’s reasonable expectations, citing the…
Association of California Insurance Companies et al v. Jones
Year: 2011
Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One
Case Number: B239943
Issue:
  • Agent Duty
  • Home Replacement Cost Estimating
  • Regulatory Authority
  • Underinsurance
State:
  • California

UP filed a brief with the California Court of Appeal in Association of California Insurance Companies v. Jones addressing the legality of regulations put forth by the California Department of Insurance to compel sellers of home insurance to properly estimate home replacement values when initiating…
Chubb Custom Ins. Co., et al. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc.
Year: 2010
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 11-16272
Issue:
  • CERCLA
State:
  • California

UP’s brief argued that insurers should not be allowed to recoup funds under subrogation in CERCLA cases, arguing that allowing otherwise would create the risk of a windfall gain to insurers and that the intent of CERCLA was to maximize the amount of funds available…
Charles Mitchell Hart and Lisa Marie Hart v. TICOR Title Insurance Company
Year: 2011
Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
Case Number: SCWC-29467
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
  • Title Insurance
State:
  • Hawaii

The policyholders’ land was insured under a title insurance policy they’d bought from TICOR. When the State of Hawaii filed a suit against them related to the land, they turned to TICOR for a defense, but it denied their claim. In an amicus brief drafted…
Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co. v. Roinestad
Year: 2010
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Case Number: 2010SC853
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Colorado

An insurer denied coverage under the pollution exclusion following the physical injuries sustained by exposure to naturally occurring sewer gas subsequent to a plumbing mishap. The insurance company alleged that the Absolute Pollution Exclusion (APE) applied; UP addressed the history and scope of the APE…
Auto Flat Car Crushers, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co.
Year: 2014
Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Case Number: 11477
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Massachusetts

When an insured files suit against an insurer for unfair or deceptive practices (under Massachusetts’ Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act) and the insurer answers and tenders unilateral payments, the insured may still maintain a cause of action for multiple damages. UP argued in its brief…
Owner’s Insurance Company v. Jim Carr Homebuilder et al.
Year: 2014
Court: Alabama Supreme Court
Case Number: 1120764
Issue:
  • Faulty Workmanship as an "Occurrence"
  • Petition for Re-hearing
State:
  • Alabama

In a recent decision, the Alabama Supreme Court left the ranks of the outlier courts, holding that faulty workmanship can be a covered “occurrence” under Commercial General Liability insurance policies. The insurer has filed a petition for re-hearing, which UP opposes. Read a recent decision…
Tidyman’s Management Services v. Davis et al.
Year: 2013
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Case Number: DA 12-0228
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Montana

Under Montana law, if a carrier refuses to defend under a reservation of rights, it does so at its own peril and is liable for all damages resulting from an unjustified breach of the duty to defend. UP argued in it’s brief that when a…
Stephens v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company
Year: 2014
Court: California Court of Appeal, First District, Division One
Case Number: A135938/A136740
Issue:
  • Insurer's Duties/Prevention
  • Replacement Cost Value
State:
  • California

Insurers owe special duties to policyholders, including the duty to communicate policy requirements and settle claims fairly. Policyholders have a reasonable expectation that their policy benefits will be paid, provided they themselves comply with the requirements of the policy. In cases where the insurer prevents…
Lemy v. Direct General Finance Company
Year: 2014
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
Case Number: 12-14794-FF
Issue:
  • Surplus Lines
State:
  • Florida

UP weighed in to prevent insurers from abusing the surplus lines marketplace to circumvent consumer protections and sell policies to Florida consumers that the former FL Insurance Commissioner labeled as a “scam.” In UP’s amicus brief, we point out that the lower court’s holding will…
The Babcock and Wilcox Company, et al. v. American Nuclear Insurers, et al.
Year: 2014
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: 2 WAP 2014
Issue:
  • Recovery of Reasonable Settlement
  • Reservation of Rights
State:
  • Pennsylvania

In an issue of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered whether an insured can recover reasonable settlement amounts if the insurer refuses to consent to settlement, in cases where the insurer defends its insured under a reservation of rights. UP argued in its brief…
Dean Craft v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company
Year: 2014
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Case Number: 2014SA43
Issue:
  • Notice-prejudice
State:
  • Colorado

The notice-prejudice rule supports insurance consumers by avoiding disproportionate forfeiture when an insured fails to report a claim within the time stated in the policy. UP argued in its brief that insurers may not avoid responsibility for a covered claim unless the insurer can show…
Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Insurance Co.
Year: 2013
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Case Number: CTQ-2013-00005/12-1470cv
Issue:
  • Construing ambiguities
  • Policy deadlines for collecting Replacement Value
State:
  • New York

Some insurers play fast and loose with the phrase “replacement cost” to their customers’ detriment. They advertise “replacement cost” (RC) coverage as being superior to “actual cash value” (ACV) coverage, and charge more for it as an enhancement. Consumers buy that enhanced protection and reasonably…
Nesmith v. Allstate
Year: 2013
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Case Number: 2010-10533
Issue:
  • Ambiguity - what is an “occurrence”?
State:
  • New York

UP argued in its brief that Allstate’s denial of a claim was improper because it relied on an ambiguous policy definition of an the ambiguity of “occurrence”. Allstate denied a claim for coverage for injuries stemming from lead poisoning citing an exclusion for multiple claims…
Hartford v. Swift
Year: 2013
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S207172
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

UP urged the California Supreme Court to follow the clear precedent that an insurer’s “duty to defend” extends to both direct and indirect, express and implied, disparagement claims. UP urged the Court to overturn a holding by the Court of Appeal that was inconsistent with…