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)…
Great American lnsurance Company, et al. v. Glen Hamel
Year: 2017
Court: Texas Supreme Court
Case Number: 14-1007
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Texas

An insurer’s most basic duty under a commercial general liability insurance policy is to defend and indemnify covered claims. In the case where an insurer wrongfully denies coverage, a policyholder must often resolve the claim itself, and then seek contribution from the insurer after-the-fact. An…
Alexandra Sims v. State Farm Automobile Ins. Co.
Year: 2017
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
Case Number: 17-1333
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Arkansas

Drivers who purchase underinsured motorist coverage expect that they are protecting themselves against disaster from at-fault drivers who don’t carry liability insurance or whose policy limits are too low to cover the damages. When an insurance company refuses to indemnify the policyholder for damages exceeding…
Cranfield v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
Year: 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Case Number: 19-3004
Issue:
  • Labor Depreciation
State:
  • Ohio

In its brief, UP argues that labor should not be depreciated in determining actual cash value. The conclusion that labor should not be depreciated does not change regardless of the method of calculating actual cash value (replacement cost minus depreciation or broad evidence rule). UP…
Kurach v. Truck Insurance Exchange
Year: 2019
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Eastern District
Case Number: 12 EAP 2019
Issue:
  • Actual Cash Value
  • General Contractor Overhead and Profit
State:
  • Pennsylvania

In this brief, UP argues that General Contractor Overhead and Profit (GCOP) should not be excluded when determining the Actual Cash Value (ACV) benefits under property insurance policies affording replacement coverage. The policy language in this particular case stated that the insurer was authorized to…
Smith v. Citadel Insurance Company, et al.
Year: 2019
Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana
Case Number: 2019-CC-0052
Issue:
  • How long an insured has to file suit against an insurer in Louisiana
State:
  • Louisiana

In an important win for policyholders, the Louisiana Supreme Court on October 21, 2019 affirmed that the prescriptive period for bad faith claims in Louisiana is in fact 10 years, not one. Congratulations to Louisiana policyholders and our amicus brief drafters Andrew Veazey, Esq. with…
ADI Worldlink, LLC v. RSUI Indemnity Company
Year: 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Case Number: 17-41050
Issue:
  • Interrelatedness Provision
State:
  • Texas

In this amicus brief, UP argues against allowing insurers to improperly use a general interrelatedness provision, while disregarding a manuscript change, to impute late notice from a separate and earlier lawsuit and deny coverage during the current policy period. Interrelated provisions are often found in…
Dino v. Safeco Insurance Company of America et al.
Year: 2019
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut
Case Number: S.C. 20197
Issue:
  • Manifestation vs. Continuous Trigger--Homeowner's Insurance Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Connecticut

The underlying case involves insurance companies denying the policyholders’ claims for insurance coverage after they discovered severe cracking in their basement walls under policies covering periods between 2000 and 2016. Without reaching the issue of whether the policies provided coverage for the crumbling concrete problem,…
Mitchell v. State Farm and Casualty Company
Year: 2019
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case Number: 3:17-cv-00170-MPM-RP
Issue:
  • Labor Depreciation
State:
  • Mississippi

In this amicus brief, UP argues that labor should not be depreciated by insurance companies in their determination of actual cash value. Many insurers do not engage in the practice of depreciating labor. For the insurance carriers who do depreciate labor, most use coverage forms…
Bridgeman v. Woodmen
Year: 2019
Court: Commonwealth of Kentucky Supreme Court
Case Number: 15-CA-000720
Issue:
  • Policyholders have a right to hold insurers accountable in open court in a jury trial
State:
  • Kentucky

**UPdate 4/25: The Kentucky Supreme Court dismissed the petition as settled. Immediately upon the Supreme Court’s acceptance of United Policyholder’s amicus brief, the insurer (Woodmen) paid the claim. The amicus brief was the impetus/trigger to a successful result for the insured’s beneficiaries. Thank you again…
Perry v. Allstate Indemnity
Year: 2019
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Case Number: 18-4267
Issue:
  • Fair and unfair depreciation applied by insurers to property claims
State:
  • Ohio

One of the ways UP helps property owners impacted by disasters is by weighing in via “friend of the court” briefs in coverage and claim disputes that involve issues that commonly arise where properties have been totally destroyed or substantially damaged. When insurers depreciate losses…
Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
Year: 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Number: 18-2206
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
  • Insurance contract interpretation
  • policyholder reasonable expectations
State:
  • Pennsylvania

In its brief, UP focuses on three grounds for reversal of the district court opinion: The District Court failed to interpret the insurance policies as a whole and rendered products liability coverage illusory in Pennsylvania. The District Court’s interpretation of “occurence” contravenes the insured’s reasonable…
Villanueva v. Fidelity National Title Co.
Year: 2018
Court: Supreme Court of California
Case Number: S252035
Issue:
  • Title Insurance
State:
  • California

UP’s Amicus Curiae Letter in Support of Petition for Review, or in the alternative Request for Depublication of Villanueva v. Fidelity National Title Co., S252035; published at (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1092 . Villanueva for the first time, strips California consumers of all rights to monetary…
Karas v. Liberty Insurance Corporation
Year: 2018
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut
Case Number: S.C. 20149
Issue:
  • Contract Interpretation
State:
  • Connecticut

“Substantial impairment of structural integrity” is the applicable standard for “collapse” and need not be clarified. This definition includes an impairment which, if not remedied, will lead inevitably to a caving in, a falling down, and/or a structure’s being unsafe to occupy. The terms “Foundation”…
Erie v. Moore, McCutcheon
Year: 2018
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Case Number: No. WAP 2018
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Insurance companies may not preemptively discern an intent to cause injury when a complaint alleges accidental injury to nullify the insurer’s duty to defend. The point of the duty to defend is ensure that the policyholder has a defense to potentially covered allegations pending a…
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Mckenzie & Sons, Inc. et al.
Year: 2018
Court: Eleventh Circuit
Case Number: No. 18-13172-D
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Florida

In its brief, UP argues that the District Court erred in determining Travelers did not owe a duty to defend based on Exclusion (j)(5). Examination of the plain language and intent of the exclusion makes clear that the exclusions have a limited application that does…