Amicus Briefs Archive - Page 7 of 36 - United Policyholders

Indiana Repertory Theatre v. The Cincinnati Casualty Co.

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals and Indiana Supreme Court

Case Number: 21A-PL-00628 and 21A-CP-02848

COVID-19

Indiana

In its three amicus curiae briefs, UP supports coverage for an insured’s business interruption losses related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19. Among other things, UP analyzes the relevance of an absence of a virus exclusion in the policies at issue and argues that decades of case…

Outwest Restaurant Group, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Inc. Co.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Number: 21-15585

COVID-19

California

In its brief, UP sets out to clarify the flawed legal arguments that were set forth by the magistrate judge at the trial court level in this case. The magistrate judge concluded that this insuring agreement requires “a physical change in the condition or a permanent dispossession of…

Westfield Area YMCA et.al. v. The North River Insurance Co. et. al.

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey

Case Number: UNN-L-2584-20

COVID-19
Regulatory Estoppel

New Jersey

In its brief, UP petitions the court to allow its appearance as amicus curiae on behalf of the Westfield Area YMCA. The question presented in this case is whether regulatory estoppel should preclude enforcement of the virus and bacteria exclusions in light of those known…

Town Kitchen, LLC v. Lloyd’s London

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Case Number: 21-10992-CC

COVID-19

Florida

In its brief, UP tackles the issue of COVID-19 as it relates to the dismissal, at the trial court level, of Town Kitchen’s compliant against Lloyd’s London. UP argues the District Court relied on precedent in other jurisdictions and placed undue reliance on the Mama…

Alpert v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC., et. al.

Court: Supreme Court of Washington

Case Number: 99377-7

Filed Rate Doctrine

Washington

In its brief, UP explores the filed rate doctrines effect on illegal insurance practices. The filed rate doctrine potentially upholds illegal practices, such as mortgage kickbacks, unjust enrichment and racketeering by barring claims against insurers for insurance rates that have been previously approved by state…

Legal Sea Foods, LLC. v. Strathmore Ins. Co.

Court: United States Circuit if Appeals fir the First Circuit

Case Number: 21-1202

COVID-19

Massachusetts

In its brief, UP weighs in on a COVID-19 matter for Legal Sea Foods whose business interruption policy did not include a virus exclusion. UP argues that the lower court in this case erred when it states the COVID-19 virus does not impact the structural…

Dakota Girls, LLC et.al., v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Case Number: 21-3245

COVID-19

Ohio

In its brief, UP tackle a COVID-19 business interruption claim on behalf of Dakota Girls. Philadelphia IIC promised to insure business income if Dakota Girls suffered “physical loss of or damage to” its property. We argue that the disjunctive “or” shows that there are two bases for coverage:…

American Capital v. Leeward Bay

Court: Supreme Court Florida

Case Number: SC20-1766

Appraisal

Florida

In its brief, UP tackles the issue of appraisal provisions that are placed in policies to resolve disputes over the amount of loss. Traditionally, nothing in the policy dictates that issues of coverage must be determined prior to appraisal. However, American Capital’s policy, and most modern…

Sandy Point Dental, P.C., v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co., Inc.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Case Number: 21-1186

COVID-19

Illinois

In its brief, UP weighs in on the uncontrolled spread of SARS-COV-2 (“coronavirus”) throughout Illinois. We argue that COVID, like a spreading wildfire, constitutes a natural disaster that insurance should cover. Businesses that were habitable and safe for their ordinary and intended use one day…

The Inns By The Sea v. California Mutual Insurance Co.

Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District

Case Number: H048443

COVID-19

California

In its brief, UP writes in support of Inns’ appeal to provide further context to this Court regarding: (1) why the insurance term “direct physical loss of or damage to” property does not require a showing of “physical alteration” to real property; (2) how the…

Santo’s Italian Cafe v. Acuity

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Case Number: 21-3068

COVID-19

Ohio

In its brief, UP combats Acuity’s argument that in order to trigger coverage, there must be a “tangible alteration” of the business. UP does not share that view and urges the court to broaden the meaning of physical loss to include damage that renders property…

RTG Furniture v. Aspen

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Case Number: 21-10490

COVID-19

Florida

In its brief, UP tackles the topic of COVID-19. In the argument’s summary, UP states that the district court erred in holding “direct physical loss of or damage to” has only one meaning–“tangible injury to property”– because in doing so the district court: (1) ignored…

TJBC, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co. Inc.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Case Number: 21-1203

COVID-19

Illinois

In its brief, UP breaks down the meaning of property in the context of COVID-19. In ascertaining the meaning of the phrase “direct physical accidental loss or damage” to property, it is critical not to minimize the significance and legal import of the word “property.” At…

Mac Property Group, LLC v. Selective Ins. Co.

Court: New Jersey Appellate Division

Case Number: L-002629-20

COVID-19

New Jersey

In its brief, UP tackles the issue COVID-19 has posed to businesses. The present case is neither theoretical nor without significant consequences to the multitude of New Jersey businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, this Court’s decision is likely to affect businesses throughout this State…

Kirsch v. Aspen American Ins. Co.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Case Number: 21-1038

COVID-19

Michigan

In its brief, UP address the issue of physical loss of or damage to the property of Dr. Kirsch’s dental practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. This case presents a basic lesson in textualism. Aspen promised to insure business income if Dr. Kirsch suffered “physical loss of…

State Farm v. Sanders

Court: Supreme Court of Florida

Case Number: SC20-596

Appraisal

Florida

In its brief, UP tackles the issue of appraisal. Insurance companies design and control the insurance policy form and the claim process. Property insurance carriers typically, as an element of exercising that control, place appraisal provisions in their policies to resolve disputes over the amount of…

Firebirds International, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins., Co.

Court: Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division

Case Number: 2020-CH-05360

COVID-19

Illinois

In its brief, UP sheds light of Zurich’s attempt to deny coverage to policyholders across Illinois and North America for losses sustained as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (the “Coronavirus”), the disease it causes, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) and the physical loss of or damage…

M&O Agencies, Inc. v. Murillo et. al.

Court: Court of Appeals State of Arizona

Case Number: 2 CA-SA 2021-0010

Anti-Abrogation

Arizona

In its brief, UP argues that he 2016 and 2019 amendments to A.R.S. § 20-259.01(A) and (B) purported to create a safe harbor barring common-law clams for professional negligence against insurance agents and brokers, and creates a safe harbor for them if they used an approved form…