Amicus Briefs Archive - Page 9 of 38 - United Policyholders

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…

Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Case Number: 2020-1134

Opioid Epidemic

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

Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

Case Number: 126446

Labor Depreciation

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.

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Case Number: 2021-0249

Policy Interpretation

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.

Court: United States District Court Western District of Washington At Seattle

Case Number: Number: 2:21-cv-00048-BJR

COVID-19

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

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Case Number: 4:18-cv-04777-PJH

ERISA anti-assignment clause

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

Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Case Number: A18-1081

Bad Faith

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.

Court: United State Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Case Number: 18-12887

Physical Loss or Damage

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.

Court: The Supreme Court of Ohio

Case Number: 20CV01275

COVID-19

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.

Court: United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island

Case Number: 1:20-cv-00512-WES-PAS

COVID-19

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.

Court: Thirtieth Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan, Ingham County

Case Number: 354418

COVID-19

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.

Court: United States District Court for the District of South Carolina

Case Number: 2020-001285

Depreciation

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…