Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co.
Year: 2018
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Case Number: S.C. 19978
Issue:
  • Reasonable Expectations of Coverage
State:
  • Connecticut

It is black letter law that ambiguous terms in insurance policies must be construed against the drafter (the insurer) in favor of coverage for the policyholder in accordance with their reasonable expectations. In the case of an inherently vague term such as “collapse” the insurer…
Howisey v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co.
Year: 2018
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 17-36045
Issue:
  • Reasonable Expectations of Coverage
State:
  • Washington

Insurance policies are contracts of adhesion. Thus, where ambiguous or otherwise in violation of a policyholder’s reasonable expectations, insurance policies must be interpreted against the drafter – the insurance company – and in favor of coverage for the policyholder. This is particularly the case where…
Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co.
Year: 2018
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Case Number: 17-2492-cv
Issue:
  • Ambiguities/Reasonable Expectations
  • Causation/Direct Loss
  • Cyber Liability
State:
  • New York

Businesses are increasingly looking to their property and liability insurance policies for indemnification and defense in connection with cyber crimes including data breaches, hacks and ransomware demands. Insurance companies are taking varying approaches to accepting and rejecting these claims. UP is weighing in to support…
Bechir Louati v. State Farm Fire and Casualty
Year: 2018
Court: Appellate Division, First Department
Case Number: 150888/16
Issue:
  • Appraisal
State:
  • New York

Appraisal is an expeditious, cost-effective procedure by which the policyholder and the insurance company can resolve disputes without resorting to litigation. The scope of the appraisal process, includes precisely that – the “scope” or “extent” of the loss. Put another way, the work needed to…
Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. San Francisco Superior Court
Year: 2018
Court: California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two
Case Number: A153198
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • California

UP wrote in opposition to a writ sought by the insurance company that would overturn a trial court ruling that held that an insurance company may not rescind a long term care insurance policy after the contestability period based on impermissible application questions. The trial…
Keyspan East Gast Corporation v. Munich Re America, Inc.
Year: 2018
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Case Number: APL-2016-00236
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Unavailability of Insurance
State:
  • New York

In the case of indivisible long-tail injury claims that have a latent manifest, the “all sums” approach protects the policyholder from litigating with every insurer that may have liability. In contrast, the “pro rata” approach is a pro-insurer approach that causes more litigation and potentially…
Pennsylvania Manufacturer’s Ass’n Ins. Co. v. Johnson Matthey, Inc. et al
Year: 2017
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: 24 MAP 2017
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Pennsylvania

UP appeared with other amici (Alco Industries, Inc., Allegheny Technologies, Inc. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation Arkema Inc., Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. Braskem America, Inc., CBS Corporation, ultimate successor to Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC International Paper Company, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC…
Labarre et al v. Texas Brine Co., LLC (Indian Harbor Ins. Co.)
Year: 2017
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Case Number: 2017-CC-1761
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
  • Statute of Limitations
State:
  • Louisiana

Under Louisiana law (statute), a policyholder’s coverage claim against its insurer should be subject to a 10-year prescriptive period. Prescriptive statutes are to be strictly construed against prescription and in favor of the obligation sought to be extinguished. A primary reason for these rules is…
Rosalin Rogers and Mark L. Thompson v. Catlin Ins. Co. LTD (UK)
Year: 2017
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Case Number: 2016SC916
Issue:
  • Post Claims Underwriting
State:
  • Colorado

Many states have enacted statutes requiring and incentivizing insurance companies to promptly pay policy benefits owing to policyholders (and those who stand in their shoes). In Colorado, insurers who fail to promptly pay benefits owed or improperly deny coverage are liable not only for the…
Office Depot, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co.
Year: 2017
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 17-55125
Issue:
  • Negligent or Reckless Speech
State:
  • California

Insurance policies rarely, if ever, exclude coverage for negligent or reckless conduct. In fact, individual consumers and businesses purchase liability insurance for liabilities arising precisely from such conduct. In contrast, intentional acts undertaken with the intent to injure, are rarely insured. California courts look at…
Karen Cosgrove v. National Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
Year: 2017
Court: U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
Case Number: CV-14-02229-PHX-HRH
Issue:
  • Estoppel
State:
  • Arizona

When an insurance company obtains confidential information from coverage counsel for the insured, it is estopped from asserting coverage defenses based upon the improperly obtained information. In the instant case, the District Court held as much, but the order was vacated and records were sealed.…
Colony Ins. Co. v. Victory Construction LLC
Year: 2017
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 17-35357
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
  • Pollution Exclusion and Coverages
State:
  • Oregon

The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. It is the most fundamental duty of a liability insurer. The absolute pollution exclusion (“APE”), which exists in nearly every CGL (Commerical General Liability) policy, relieves the insurer of the duty to defend when…
Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court (Montrose IX)
Year: 2017
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: B272387/S244737
Issue:
  • Allocation
  • Excess Insurance
State:
  • California

UP submitted letters requesting depublication of the appellate decision and supporting review by the California Supreme Court. In it’s letters UP argued that the Montrose IX Court created new and bad law by (a) adopting a coverage-minimizing reading of the term “underlying insurance,” in contravention…
The Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co.
Year: 2017
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Case Number: 15-55777
Issue:
  • Reasonable Expectations of Coverage
State:
  • California

Fundamental principles of California insurance law ensure that coverage exclusions are construed narrowly to avoid defeating the mutual intentions of the parties and, particularly, the reasonable expectations of the insured. California law does not consider words of an insurance policy (or any contract) in isolation.…
James Duepner v. GEICO Casualty Co.
Year: 2017
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Case Number: CV-17-0216-PR
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Arizona

Punitive damages are an essential check on abuse and overreaching by insurance companies making coverage decisions and adjusting claims. There is a vast gulf between the power and wealth of insurance companies and their insurance consumers. It is true that many insurers act responsibly in…
Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.
Year: 2017
Court: California Supreme Court
Case Number: S239510
Issue:
  • Notice-prejudice
State:
  • California

The notice prejudice rule protects policyholders from undue forfeiture of benefits when they fail to report a claim within the applicable insurance policy’s deadline. California’s notice-prejudice rule allows a policyholder to file a claim after the reporting deadline if it can show that the late…
Anadarko Petroleum Co. v. Houston Casualty Co et al.
Year: 2017
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: No. 16-1013
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Texas

It is well-settled that Texas courts maintain the value of insurance and keep a level playing field between the state’s residents and insurance companies by applying and enforcing the doctrine of contra proferentem – i.e., ambiguous language in an insurance policy is to be interpreted…
Comments to California Judicial Council on CACI No. 2334
Year: 2017
Court:
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

UP submitted comments to the California Judicial Council in response to proposed changes to California Civil Jury Instruction 2234 – Bad Faith (Third Party)—Refusal to Accept Reasonable Settlement Within Liability Policy Limits—Essential Factual Elements. UP pointed out four areas where the instruction needs revision: (1)…