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…
Fils v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company
Year: 2018
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit
Case Number: Docket No. 17 00896-CA
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Louisiana

In this case, UP weighed in to preserve Louisiana residents’ rights to be compensated when they’ve been harmed by bad faith conduct by an insurance company. Our Friend of the Court brief points out that the District Court erred in maintaining Star Indemnity & Liability…
Harvey v. Geico
Year: 2017
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Case Number: SC17-85
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Florida

The Florida Supreme Court held there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that Geico acted in bad faith in failing to settle a fatal car crash claim against its policyholder and reinstated the jury’s $9.2 million verdict against Geico. See: https://www.uphelp.org/blog/guest-blog-supreme-court-fl-rules-favor-policyholder-application-floridas-bad-faith-law
House Concurrent Resolution No. 89 Position Paper
Year: 2018
Court:
Case Number: House Concurrent Resolution No. 89
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Louisiana

UP’s position paper submitted to the Louisiana State Law Institute to urge and request the Institute support application of a ten-year prescriptive period to an insured’s bad faith claims against its insurer.
Susan Hicks and Don Williams, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Defendant-Appellant.
Year: 2018
Court: U.S. Court of Appeal, 6th Circuit
Case Number: Case No. 18-5104
Issue:
  • Labor Depreciation
State:
  • Kentucky

This amicus brief discusses the wrongful depreciation of labor, an insurer strategy to minimize benefit payments after a loss. An insurance contract must receive a reasonable interpretation consistent with the parties’ expression in the language of the contract. Depreciation is the reduction of tangible property…
Opry Mills Mall Limited Partnership et al v. Arch Insurance Company et al
Year: 2018
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Case Number: M 2016 01763-SC-R11-CV
Issue:
  • policyholder reasonable expectations
State:
  • Tennessee

The rules of insurance policy interpretation in the States of Tennessee and Indiana are well-settled law and should continue to preserve policyholders’ reasonable expectations of coverage. Ambiguous policy wording should be construed in favor of coverage.
Jane Doe v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc. and the Harvard Pilgrim PPO Plan MA Group Policy # 0588660000
Year: 2018
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Case Number: 17-2078
Issue:
  • ERISA
State:
  • Massachusetts

This amicus brief addresses the ERISA fiduciary’s duty under the ERISA statute and Secretary of Labor regulations to afford full and fair review when a fiduciary denies a benefit claim This duty requires a fiduciary to help secure “readily available material evidence of which it…
Lammert et al v. Auto Owners Mut. Ins. Co.
Year: 2018
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Case Number: M2017-02546-SC-R23-CV
Issue:
  • Labor Depreciation
State:
  • Tennessee

Tennessee law upholds a policyholder’s reasonable expectations of coverage. Consistent with those principles, the cost of labor should not be depreciated. Depreciation of labor results in policyholders not receiving the full amount that they reasonably are entitled to under their actual cash value coverage, and…
Rising Dough, Inc. v. Society Insurance
Year: 2020
Court: United States District Court - Eastern District of Wisconsin
Case Number: 2:20-CV-00623-JPS
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Wisconsin

In its brief, UP, along with NIVA, opposed a Motion to Dismiss and argued that the unsuitability of a property for its intended purpose resulting in the suspension of business operations can and did constitute “physical loss of” the insured property under the Policies issued…
Dakota Ventures, LLC v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co.
Year: 2020
Court: United States District Court District - District of Oregon
Case Number: 3:20-cv-00630-HZ
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Oregon

In its brief, UP, along with NIVA, opposed a Motion to Dismiss and argued that contamination, suspected contamination, and/or the imminent threat of contamination by SARS CoV-2 that result in the suspension of business operations can constitute “physical loss of or damage” under a property…
IN RE: COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Insurance Litigation
Year: 2020
Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Case Number: MDL Docket No. 2942
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • United States

In its brief, UP urged the court against creating the first-ever nationwide insurance coverage MDL, attempting to consolidate all lawsuits seeking coverage for losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic into a single MDL proceeding of staggering scope and breadth. UP argued: First, while the cases…
Prime Time Sports Grill, Inc. v. DTW1991 Underwriting Limited, A Certain Interested Underwriter at Lloyd’s London
Year: 2020
Court: United States District Court Middle District of Florida
Case Number: 8:20-cv-00771-CEH-JSS
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Florida

In its brief, UP opposed a Motion to Dismiss and seeks to address the limited issue that the certain covered causes of loss (such as COVID-19 and civil authority orders) can in good faith be alleged to have caused “direct physical loss or damage.” UP…
Joseph Tambellini, Inc. v. Erie Insurance Exchange
Year: 2020
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Case Number: 52 WM 2020
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Pennsylvania

In its brief, UP weighed in to argue against a homogenous, one-size-fits-all judicial resolution for business interruption (BI) claims resulting from Governor Tom Wolf’s emergency order regulating actives of business and persons in Pennsylvania. UP first argues that the proposed consolidation would limit the options…
National Indemnity Co. v. State of Montana
Year: 2020
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Montana
Case Number: 19-0533
Issue:
  • Allocation
State:
  • Montana

In its brief, UP argues that the District Court correctly held that NIC owes the State a complete defense and indemnity for long-tail asbestos claims under the “all sums” language in its insurance policy. That holding is consistent not only with the insurance policy language;…
Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company et al. v. ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al.
Year: 2020
Court: In The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon
Case Number: 120404552
Issue:
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • Oregon

In its brief, UP weighed in to assist the Oregon Supreme Court in ruling on a dispute related to claims for long-tail coverage for environmental clean-up under policies with a variant of the standard “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion. UP urged the court to correct…
ADIR International, LLC v. STARR Indemnity and Liability Co.
Year: 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 19-56320
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • California

People and companies that buy insurance to protect themselves from the cost of being sued by others, including by governments (as is the case here), depend on that insurance to pay for their legal representation. Without that vital coverage, many insureds will have no meaningful…
Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Co.
Year: 2020
Court: First District Court of Appeal, Division 2
Case Number: A155691
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • California

One of UP’s Platinum sponsors, Kerley Shaffer, LLP, obtained a reversal of summary judgment in favor of an insurance company in a bad faith claim. Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Co involved the application of the “genuine dispute” rule – a rule that allows…
In Re Solera Insurance Coverage Appeals
Year: 2020
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
Case Number: N18C-08-315 AML CCLD
Issue:
  • Notice-prejudice
State:
  • Delaware

In its brief, UP argues that a liability insurer cannot deny coverage for a policyholder’s defense costs solely because the policyholder did not seek the insurer’s consent to incur those costs in advance when the delay did not have any prejudicial impact on the insurer.…