M&O Agencies, Inc. v. Murillo et. al.
Year: 2021
Court: Court of Appeals State of Arizona
Case Number: 2 CA-SA 2021-0010
Issue:
  • Anti-Abrogation
State:
  • 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…
Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.
Year: 2021
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Case Number: 2020-1134
Issue:
  • Opioid Epidemic
State:
  • Ohio

In its brief, UP is concerned with the insurance industry’s recent efforts to reshape insurance coverage law in Ohio and elsewhere as it applies to commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies and government suits against policyholders. With increasing frequency governments have sought damages against policyholders in…
Sproull v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co
Year: 2021
Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
Case Number: 126446
Issue:
  • Labor Depreciation
State:
  • Illinois

In its brief, UP notes that building owners purchase property insurance to protect themselves if their property is damaged by fire, hail, tornadoes, or other often catastrophic events. In the case of homeowners, adequate payment of insurance policy benefits is often what stands between them…
Garrett Well, LLC. v. The Frick-Gallagher Manufacturing Co. et. al.
Year: 2021
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Case Number: 2021-0249
Issue:
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • Ohio

In its brief, UP urged the court against departing from the majority rule recognized across the country: that standard historical general liability insurance policy forms insure policyholders against liabilities involving groundwater and damage to other third-party property. In this case, the Court of Appeals applied…
HT-Seattle Owner, LLC. v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: United States District Court Western District of Washington At Seattle
Case Number: Number: 2:21-cv-00048-BJR
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Washington

In its brief, UP sheds light on Zurich Edge’s pre-printed policy form that it issues to only its very large property policyholders and includes an endorsement that deletes “virus” from the Policy’s Contamination Exclusion (the “Virus Deletion Endorsement”). The “all-risk” policy provides coverage for COVID…
California Spine and Neurosurgery Institute v. Blue Cross of California
Year: 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 4:18-cv-04777-PJH
Issue:
  • ERISA anti-assignment clause
State:
  • California

Plaintiff performed surgery on a patient covered under an ERISA healthcare plan administered by defendant. As is custom, plaintiff obtained a signed agreement assigning the patient’s rights and benefits under the plan to plaintiff. Despite numerous communications making this fact known, defendant never told plaintiff…
Peterson v. Western National Mutual Insurance
Year: 2019
Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Case Number: A18-1081
Issue:
  • Bad Faith
State:
  • Minnesota

In its brief, UP weighed in on Minnesota’s bad faith statute, § 604.18, in order to protect Minnesota policyholders when an insurance company does not complete a reasonable investigation of a claim. UP weighed in to avoid a narrow reading of the statute which would not…
Mama Jo’s, Inc. v. Sparta Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: United State Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Number: 18-12887
Issue:
  • Physical Loss or Damage
State:
  • Florida

In its brief, UP weighs in on whether the dust from a construction site adjacent to Mama Jo’s resulted in “direct physical loss or damage to the property enough to trigger policy coverage. The summary of the argument is taken from the amicus: “The issues…
Neuro-Communication Services, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: The Supreme Court of Ohio
Case Number: 20CV01275
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Ohio

In its brief, UP urges the court to exercise its discretion and decline to answer a question that was certified by the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio. The question, UP argues, addresses well settled principles of contract and insurance law that are…
Procaccianti Co. Ins. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Case Number: 1:20-cv-00512-WES-PAS
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Rhode Island

In its brief, UP refutes Zurich’s position that “the headings in the Policy should be used to defines the scope of coverage.” UP’s position is that this notion upends the long-established principles of insurance policy interpretation. Policy language must be given it plain, ordinary, and…
Gavrilides Management Co. LLC et. al. v. Michigan Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: Thirtieth Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan, Ingham County
Case Number: 354418
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Michigan

In its brief, UP argues four points relating to whether COVID-19 constitute physical loss or damage and whether the findings of previous courts preclude policyholders from being compensated for business interruptions. This case is not the proper vehicle for ruling on an issue that will…
Butler v. The Travelers Home & Marine Ins Co et. al.
Year: 2021
Court: United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
Case Number: 2020-001285
Issue:
  • Depreciation
State:
  • South Carolina

In its brief, UP presents this question to the Court: “When a homeowners’ insurance policy does not define the term “actual cash value,” may an insurer depreciate the cost of labor in determining the “actual cash value” of a covered loss when the estimated cost…
Mudpie v. Travelers Casualty Ins. Co.
Year: 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 4:20-cv-03213-JST
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • California

UP’s February 9, 2021 brief discusses whether COVID-19 triggers “physical loss or damage” under a business interruption coverage policy. UP argues that given the insured’s limited allegations in their initial complaint, the most appropriate course of action is for the Ninth Circuit to decline to…
Plan Check Downtown v. Amguard Ins. Co, et. al.
Year: 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 2:20-cv-06954-GW-SKx
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • California

In its brief, UP explores whether the effects of COVID-19 triggers “physical loss or damage” under a business interruption coverage policy. UP states that the most appropriate course of action is for the court to: decline to certify the “physical loss or damage” issue to…
Earle v. Unum Life Ins. Co of America
Year: 2020
Court: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Number: 2:19-cv-02903-JFW-AFM
Issue:
  • Discretionary Clauses
State:
  • California

In its brief, UP seeks leave of the Appellate Court of California to reverse the district court’s application of an abuse of discretion standard of review. UP also seeks reversal of the district court’s incorrect determination that California Insurance Code § 10110.6, which bans discretionary…
Hinojos v. State Farm Lloyds and Pulido
Year: 2020
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Case Number: 08-16-00121-CV
Issue:
  • Appraisal
State:
  • Texas

In this brief UP endeavors to change the use of Texas’ longstanding reasonableness exception to bar insured’s Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA) entitlements. This reasonableness exception provides insurers with a loophole opportunity to low-ball the insured, take a gamble on a policyholder paying…
Serendipitous, LLC/Melt v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company
Year: 2020
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
Case Number: 20-cv-00873-MHH
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Alabama

In its brief, UP opposed a Motion to Dismiss a COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim by The Cincinnati Insurance Company. UP argues that the presence, suspected presence, or the imminent threat of the presence of the deadly SARS-CoV-2 virus that results in the suspension of business…
Rose’s 1 v. Erie Insurance Exchange
Year: 2020
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Case Number: 2020 CA 002424B
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • District of Columbia

In its brief, UP, along with the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), supported the plaintiffs-appellants regarding their COVID-19 Business Interruption insurance claim and asked the Court to reverse the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment to Erie Insurance Exchange. UP and NIVA argued that this…