About the Amicus Library
Welcome to the Amicus Project library. Here you will find copies of the briefs we have filed on behalf of insurance consumers. UP brings a unique consumer voice before courts confronting insurance issues - reminding judges that there are real people who have suffered real loss behind the case captions.
At the time UP published its 2011 report entitled: "Twenty Years Protecting, Defending and Advancing Policyholders Rights" we had filed 300+ briefs since our founding in 1991. UP's Amicus Project output has grown exponentially and more and more courts are hearing our voice and adopting our arguments.
UP's Amicus Project is made possible by the hundreds of dedicated policyholder attorneys who generously volunteer their time to write our briefs. Click here to view the attorneys who make up our Amicus Project Team.
To request that UP weigh in on a case, please complete this Request Form.
When a policyholder purchases a separate endoresment providing insurance coverage for intentional torts of employees, insurers may not disclaim coverage by using vicarious liability as a shield.... Read more
Indexed annuities are life insurance products that promise high yields for consumers.
Florida law imposes a non-delegable duty on title insurers to charge a lower reissue rate when a property is refinanced with clear title.
A court faced with textual ambiguity may review extrinsic evidence to assist the trier of fact in ascertaining what the parties intended in entering into the contract.
Insurance coverage for data breach should be available under a commercial general liability policy's "publication" provision.
On certified question from the U.S.
UP submitted this letter requesting depublication of the decision in Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.
Under California law, the duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied in all insurance contracts.
In response to the California Department of Insurance's letter requesting republication, UP wrote in support of the published decision in Ellena v. Department of Insurance.
Policyholders pay higher premiums for replacement cost value policies in order to recoup additional insurance proceeds necessary to rebuild or purchase substitute property.