Paslay v. State Farm
Year: 2016
Court: California Court of Appeal
Case Number: B265348,
Issue:
State:
  • California

UP submitted a request to depublish a portion of an appellate opinion which improperly made a finding of fact about an insurance bad faith dispute. In the case, the insured, while waiting for the adjuster to come to the house to inspect the damage, began…
Snyder v. ACORD corporation et al
Year: 2016
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit
Case Number: 16-1111/16-1215
Issue:
  • Underinsurance
State:
  • Colorado

After wildfires and other major disasters that result in total losses, many homeowners find themselves underinsured. What this means is that despite having been sold a “replacement cost” insurance policy, they do not have enough money to rebuild their home. Plaintiffs in the instant case,…
MarkWest Energy Partners, LP v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
Year: 2016
Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
Case Number: 15CA0770/2016COA110
Issue:
  • Notice-prejudice
State:
  • Colorado

Colorado’s notice-prejudice protects policyholders from a forfeiture of coverage for late reporting of a claim by requiring the insurer to show actual prejudice as a result of the late reporting before it can disclaim coverage. Colorado law authorizes a departure from traditional contract law principles…
Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Elite Homes
Year: 2016
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
Case Number: 3:14-cv-01182-TJC-MCR
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Florida

Under Florida law, the duty to defend under a liability policy is triggered when the complaint brought by a third party against the insured alleges any cause of action or damages that create even a possibility of coverage. In other words, the duty to defend…
Allianz Global Risks U.S. Ins. Co., Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Ace Property and Casualty Ins. Co. et al
Year: 2016
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Case Number: A159858
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Oregon

In an insurer v. insurer coverage battle, UP and co-amici urged an interpretation favorable to the policyholder of a coverage provision which does not require “seepage, pollution or contamination” resulting from a “sudden, unintended and unexpected happening” during the policy period to be “abrupt” or…
Patriot Cleaning Services v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London
Year: 2016
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S233277
Issue:
  • Reasonable Expectations of Coverage
State:
  • California

In a theft case, UP submitted a letter supporting review on two grounds: First, the trial and appellate courts erred in allowing a motion for summary judgment to survive despite a reasonable inference (in this case that the doors to a van could have been…
Tamarin Lindenberg v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co.
Year: 2016
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Case Number: M2015-02349-SC-R23-CV
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
  • Punitive Damages
State:
  • Tennessee

In many jurisdictions when an insurance company breaches an insurance contract, it not only is required to pay what it owed originally and wrongfully delayed or denied, it also must pay attorneys fees and punitive damages. The rationale is that if an insurance company only…
Cypress Point Condominium Association v. Evanston Insurance Co. et al
Year: 2016
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Case Number: A-13/14/15 (076348)
Issue:
  • Occurrence
State:
  • New Jersey

The vast majority of states that have addressed the issue of what is an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability policy have reached the conclusion that construction defect claims are within coverage. Since an “occurrence” is defined as an “accident” courts in many states, including…
Association of California Insurance Companies et al. v. Dave Jones, in his capacity as Insurance Commissioner for the State of California
Year: 2016
Court: California Supreme Court (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One)
Case Number: B248622/S226529
Issue:
  • Regulatory Authority
  • Replacement Cost Value
  • Underinsurance
State:
  • California

After every wildfire UP has worked since 1991, over 50% of the victims who thought they were fully insured turned out to be insured for less – often far less – than they needed to cover repairs and rebuilding. We refer to this as “the…
General Refractories v. First State Ins. Co. et al
Year: 2016
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Case Number: 15-3409
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Under Pennsylvania law, insurers have the burden to prove that an exception applies in order to deny coverage. Thus, a reviewing court must give more weight to extrinsic evidence presented by the insured promoting coverage than extrinsic evidence presented by the insurer who is trying…
Stephen Rumnock v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
Year: 2016
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Case Number: 2016SA38
Issue:
  • Claims handling procedures
  • Protective orders
State:
  • Colorado

Absent a legitimate justification, insurers may not seek protective orders for internal documents on claims handling procedures sought in discovery which may indicate a pattern and practice, or at minimum resemble similar claims by different litigants. Requiring each litigant (read: each individual policyholder) to seek…
In the matter of Viking Pump and Warren Pump, insurance appeals
Year: 2016
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Case Number: CTQ-2015-0003
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Asbestos
  • long-tail liabilities
State:
  • New York

Joined by co-amici the Asbestos PI Trust, ASARCO Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, Duro Dyne Corporation, John Crane Inc. and Alfa Laval Inc, UP urged the New York Court of Appeals to hold that comprehensive general liability insurance policies containing non-cumulation and prior insurance provisions must…
R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.
Year: 2015
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Case Number: AC36749
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • defense and indemnity costs
State:
  • Connecticut

Where a business purchases insurance to cover specific risks (here asbestos) an insurer may not “pro-rate” its liability based on an exclusion, when additional, different insurance is not available, yet the insurance called upon to respond to a claim was purchased to cover that specific…
Arceneaux et al v. Amstar et al.
Year: 2015
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Case Number: 2015-C-588
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Louisiana

The duty to defend in long-latency cases may not be “pro-rated.” This rule is consistent with the insurance policy language at issue and well-settled Louisiana jurisprudence, but also with principles of equity, fairness and public policy. The duty to defend and the duty to indemnify…
Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bobby Chupp and Amy Smith
Year: 2015
Court: Georgia Supreme Court
Case Number: S15G1177
Issue:
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Georgia

Claims for personal injury resulting from lead-based paint ingestion are not excluded from coverage pursuant to pollution exclusions typically included in commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policies. Often referred to as the “absolute” or “total” pollution exclusion, this provision – as evidenced by, inter alia,…
Monarch et al v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.
Year: 2015
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Case Number: 102187/11
Issue:
  • Prior Approval of Policies
  • Regulatory Authority
State:
  • New York

Under the California Insurance Code, the Worker’s Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau is required to submit policy forms to the Department of Insurance for review before they may be approved for sale to the public. Insurers may not alter policy forms after they are reviewed and…
Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
Year: 2017
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Case Number: 2017SA3
Issue:
  • Statute of Limitations
State:
  • Colorado

Under Colorado law, a policyholder may bring action under the “prompt payment statute” when an insurance company unreasonably delays or denies payment on a valid insurance claim. On certified question from the Colorado Federal District Court, the Colorado Supreme Court was confronted with the issue…
Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Ledesma and Meyer Construction Co., Inc.
Year: 2017
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S236765
Issue:
  • Accident/Occurrence
  • Employee's Torts and Negligence
  • Employer's Vicarious Liability
State:
  • California

California courts have long held that liability insurance covers an employer’s vicarious liability for employee negligence as well as intentional torts. In countless decisions over the years, California courts have upheld coverage for employer’s vicarious liabilities for intentional, willful acts and torts of their employees…