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…
Chattanooga Professional Baseball LLC v. National Casualty Co.
Year: 2020
Court: United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Case Number: 2:20-cv-01312-DLR
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Arizona

In its brief, UP opposed a Motion to Dismiss a COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim by National Casualty Co. This case involves the application of a Virus or Bacteria Exclusion which was drafted by insurance industry drafting organizations, the Insurance Service Office, Inc. (“ISO”) and the…
Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC v. Society Insurance, Inc.
Year: 2020
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Case Number: 20-cv-02005
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Illinois

In its brief, UP opposed a Motion to Dismiss a COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim by Society Insurance, Inc. UP argued that, properly construed, Society’s property policies provide coverage for the loss of property sustained by plaintiffs. UP argues that “physical loss” cannot mean the same…
Vita Coffee, LLC v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company
Year: 2020
Court: United States District Court Western District of Washington at Seattle
Case Number: 2:20-cv-01079-JCC-DWC
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Washington

In its brief, UP, along with the National Independent Venue Association and the Washington Hospitality Association, opposed a Motion to Dismiss a COVID-19 Business Interruption claim by Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company. UP focused on the following arguments: Washington rules of insurance contract interpretation do not…
Nostalgic Partners LLC (MiLB) v. Philadephia Indemnity Insurance Co.
Year: 2020
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Case Number: 20-cv-03346-ABB
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • Pennsylvania

In its brief, UP, along with the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), opposed a Motion to Dismiss a COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. UP and NIVA discuss the application of a Virus or Bacteria Exclusion and whether insurers misrepresentations that property…
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Walls
Year: 2020
Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
Case Number: 2019-001596
Issue:
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • South Carolina

In its brief, UP advocates for the proper interpretation of consumer protections for automobile policyholders in South Carolina. In this case, Nationwide’s policy purported to deny any coverage for death or injury that a named insured, a relative of a named insured, or a permissive…
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) v. Ace American Insurance Co.
Year: 2020
Court: Indiana Supreme Court
Case Number: 19A-PL-01313
Issue:
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • Indiana

In its brief, UP argues that the Court of Appeals Opinion incorrectly adopts a broad interpretation of exclusionary insurance policy language that threatens to substantially limit or eliminate years of coverage for Indiana policyholders under claims-made insurance policies. Such policies cover claims made during year(s)…
Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Ironics, Inc. and Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.
Year: 2020
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Case Number: 2020-0306
Issue:
  • incorporation doctrine
  • Policy Interpretation
State:
  • Ohio

In its brief, UP argues that the CGL and Umbrella Policy sold to Ironics requires Motorists Insurance Company to defend and indemnify Ironics against a claim of providing nonconforming tube scale (which upon incorporation into another party’s glass bottles, rendered them unsafe and unusable). The…
Klass v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
Year: 2020
Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Case Number: S.C. 20451
Issue:
  • Appraisal
State:
  • Connecticut

In its brief, UP argues for the proper and efficient application of the appraisal process. Technical disputes over dollar values of property damage and construction and repair costs are well suited to being resolved in insurance appraisals. The appraisal process offers the advantage of a…
Chloe’s Cafe v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co.
Year: 2020
Court: United States District Court Northern District of California
Case Number: 3:20-cv-05467-LB
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • California

In its brief, UP opposed a Motion to Dismiss a COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim by Oregon Mutual Insurance Company. Specifically, UP address the question of whether “direct physical loss or damage” occurs when the proliferation of a deadly virus and ensuing government closure orders deprive…
Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association Inc.
Year: 2020
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Case Number: 16CV33608
Issue:
  • Duty to Defend
State:
  • Colorado

In its brief, UP requests that the Colorado Supreme Court affirm the decision of the Court of Appeal. UP argued that in exercising its right and duty to defend its policyholder, an insurance company must conduct the defense in the best interest of the policyholder.…
Motiv Group, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.
Year: 2021
Court: United States District Court Central District of California Western
Case Number: 3:20-cv-08206
Issue:
  • COVID-19
State:
  • California

In its brief, UP reasons that under California law, real and personal property sustains “direct physical loss or damage” when the proliferation of a deadly virus and ensuing government closure orders deprive that property of its intended use. Its reasoning is that California has set…
Advance Watch Company, Ltd. vs. Kemper National Insurance Company
Year: 1996
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
Case Number: No. 95-1367/1387
Issue:
  • Advertising Injury
  • Trademark Infringement
State:
  • Michigan

Trademark infringement claims should be covered under standard form advertising injury policy.
ACE American Insurance Company vs. Underwriters at Lloyds and Companies, et al.
Year: 2007
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: No. 45 EAP 2008
Issue:
  • Errors and Omissions
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Errors and Omissions, or “E&O” insurance. If an insurance company attempts to avoid its coverage obligations under a claims-made policy due to “late notice,” the insurance company must bear the burden to prove that notice was late, just like under an occurrence policy. Even when…
AAA Disposal Systems, Inc. and BFI Waste vs. Aetna
Year: 2003
Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
Case Number:
Issue:
  • Late notice
State:
  • Illinois

Late notice; all sums; joint and several; allocation
401 Fourth Street Inc. vs. Investors Insurance Group
Year: 2003
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case Number: No. 270 MAP 2003
Issue:
  • Coverage
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Since the term “collapse” in the policy is ambiguous and connotes only a substantial impairment of a building’s structural integrity, there must be coverage for “imminent collapse” Court quotes UP’s brief.