“We are so grateful to have wonderful UP looking out for us and putting together amazing amounts of information to help us understand 'the process' and cope with the trials and tribulations!"
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.
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.
“Post-claims underwriting” describes the scenario where an insurer waits until after the insured makes a claim to investigate whether the insured is eligible for coverage based on the risk he or... Read more
The carrier denied coverage for payments incurred as losses for fraudulent use of the insured's computer systems (bogus medicare payments).
Insurance contracts are to be construed in accordance with the plain meaning of terms and the reasonable expectations of the policyholder.
UP, joined by co-amici The Marine Group, LLC, MMGL Corp. and Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. urged the Court to uphold a correct ruling by an Oregon District Court that a 104(e) Request... Read more
Under a correct reading of an Umbrella Policy, an Employer's Liability exclusion only applies where a an insured is sued by its own employee (e.g., damages for bodily injury in a suit... Read more
ERISA plan administrators must include a time limit for judicial review (i.e., a statute of limitations to file suit) in a letter denying disability benefits. In the absence of such a... Read more
Maryland law does not apply the rule of contra proferentem, accepted by a majority of states - that ambiguous terms in insurance contracts are to be construed strictly against the insurer-drafter... Read more
In this case, the District Court held that the insured’s ERISA action was untimely under the provisions of the Long-Term Disability Plan because the contractual deadline for filing suit... Read more