The policyholders' land was insured under a title insurance policy they'd bought from TICOR. When the State of Hawaii filed a suit against them related to the land, they turned to TICOR for a defense, but it denied their claim. In an amicus brief drafted pro bono by Alan Van Etten of Deeley King Pang & Van Etten, LLP, UP argued in favor of the insurer's duty to defend the Harts. The Hawaii Supreme Court agreed. It reversed a lower court ruling, concluded that TICOR had a duty to defend the Harts, and directed the District Court to enter judgment in their favor. The Hart's attorney conveyed his thanks to UP; writing "United Policyholders' amicus brief certainly highlighted for the Justices the importance of this case," Christopher T. Goodin, Esq. of Cades Schutte LLP.

Related Docs: 

Hart v. Ticor Title Insurance Company