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)…
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,…