Amicus Briefs Archive - Page 3 of 37 - United Policyholders

Olympic Vista Homeowners Association v. Allstate Insurance Company

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Number: 23-3109

Notice of time to file claim

Washington

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders addresses the important issue of suit limitations clauses in insurance policies for progressive hidden damage claims. In the case the insurance policy contained a clause requiring an insured to file suit within 2 years after the loss occurred. But…

Aloha Petroleum v. National Union Fire Insurance Company

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Case Number: SCCQ-23-0000515

Duty to Defend

Hawaii

In the Aloha Petroleum case, the Hawaii Supreme Court accepted a certified question from a Hawaii Federal District Court asking: (1) For any insurance policy defining a covered “occurrence” in part as an “accident,” can an “accident” include recklessness? and (2) For an “occurrence” insurance…

North State Deli, LLC, et al v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, et al

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Case Number: 22-PA21-2

COVID-19

North Carolina

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19.

Westfield Insurance Company v. Sisterville Tank Works, Inc., et. al

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals

Case Number: 22-848

Continuous Trigger

West Virginia

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders urged West Virginia’s high court to adopt the “continuous trigger” standard for progressive injuries in occurrence based insurance policies. In October of 2023, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals issued its opinion, noting that it “greatly appreciate the…

75 Arlington Street, et. al v. Strathmore Insurance Company

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Case Number: 2023-P-0407

COVID-19

Massachusetts

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19.

Lincoln Holdings LLC, et al. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company

Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Case Number: 23-7056

COVID-19

District of Columbia

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19.

Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Medline Industries, Inc. et al.

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District

Case Number: 1-23-0841

Duty to Defend

Illinois

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders addresses the question of whether a liability insurer has a duty to defend an underlying lawsuit alleging only willful and intentional wrongdoing by an insured defendant but when liability could be established by proof of non-intentional, accidental conduct. Drawing…

Starlight Cinemas, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co.

Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District, Division Seven

Case Number: B313518

COVID-19

California

Letter requesting depublication.

Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Case Number: 22-500

Choice of Law

Pennsylvania

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders addresses the question of whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice of law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable when enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the State whose law is displaced.

Zurich American Insurance Company v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Case Number: 23-1167 & SJC-13535

Insurance contract interpretation

Massachusetts

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders addresses the question of whether rainwater that landed and accumulated on an enclosed rooftop one or more stories above ground constitutes “surface waters” for the purposes of an insurance policy’s “Flood” sublimit. Related News A “Flood” of Uncertainty;…

Creative Consolidation, et. al v. Erie Insurance Company

Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Case Number: 22-cv-950

COVID-19

District of Columbia

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. UP’s brief rebuts an insurance industry talking point that is often raised during times of crisis: that requiring insurance companies to pay what…

Mark Bennett, D.D.S. v. Ohio National Life Assurance Corporation

Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District, Division III

Case Number: A166049

Statute of Limitations

California

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports an insured doctor in the context of disability insurance. Lifetime benefit cases are an increasingly important issue given that individuals who purchased such policies in the mid to late 90s are now often reaching age 65. In…

AC Ocean Walk v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., et al.

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Case Number: 087304

COVID-19

New Jersey

In its amicus curiae brief, UP supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. UP argues that decades of case law demonstrate what the insurance industry and policyholders have long known: that “all risks” insurance policies protect insureds…

Travelers Insurance Company, et al. v. Bodell Construction Company

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Case Number: SCCQ-22-0000658

Duty to Defend

Hawaii

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders addresses a critical question that has split state high courts around the country: whether an insurance company can seek reimbursement or recoupment of previously paid defense fees and costs when the insurance policy contains no express provision allowing for…

The Everett Clinic, PLLC v. Premera and Premerafirst, Inc

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Case Number: 101683-2

Health Plans

Washington

In its amicus brief, United Policyholders takes a pro-consumer and pro-insurer position in the context of Washington’s longstanding public policy commitment to price competition in the healthcare marketplace. UP’s brief urges the Court to interpret a disputed agreement in a way that fosters competition and…

Tory Burch, LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Case Number: A-001566-21

COVID-19

New Jersey

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. UP argues that decades of case law demonstrate what the insurance industry has long accepted and policyholders have long expected: that the phrase…

Wawa, Inc. v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company, et al.

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Case Number: A-003820-21T4

COVID-19

New Jersey

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. UP argues that decades of case law demonstrate what the insurance industry has long accepted and policyholders have long expected: that the phrase…

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Case Number: 22-1983

Late notice

Massachusetts

In its amicus curiae brief, United Policyholders weighs in on the issue of late notice under claims made insurance policies. In order to protect policyholders against the threat of losing coverage on account of minor breaches of the technical notice requirements, courts around the country…