In my personal experience as a member of the Weed Long Term Recovery Group from the Boles Fire, the workshop by United Policyholders was one of the most informative and helpful resources we came across in recovery.
About the Amicus Library
Welcome to the Amicus Project library. Here you will find copies of the 400+ legal briefs United Policyholders has filed as an "amicus curiae" (friend of the court) since 1991. We file amicus briefs to help courts respect and effectuate consumers' reasonable expectations of coverage and reach fair results in coverage and claim dispute lawsuits. In addition to calling courts' attention to helpful legal precedents, UP helps judges consider the impact of their decisions on people and businesses that suffer dire consequences when insurance companies put their own profit motives ahead of their customers' best interests.
The United Policyholders Amicus Project is made possible by the hundreds of dedicated policyholder attorneys who generously volunteer their time to write, review and edit 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.
UP chronicled our Amicus Project in a 2011 report titled "Twenty Years Protecting, Defending and Advancing Policyholders Rights"
This lawsuit concerns deficient actual cash value (ACV) payments. Plaintiffs challenge State Farm’s method of calculating ACV and, in large part, challenge State Farm’s depreciation of labor.
In its brief, UP argues against the wrongful depreciation of labor. This issue has been litigated throughout the country, and states have been split on the outcome.
In its brief, UP argues that the Court of Appeal incorrectly decided a case involving unfiled title insurance rates, and that if upheld, could negatively impact consumers across multiple lines of... Read more
In its brief, UP argues for the applicable standard to apply in Arizona when determining whether an insurer unreasonably withholds consent to an insured’s settlement with shareholders in a breach... Read more
In its brief, UP argues that this Court should review the Court of Appeals opinion because it substantially narrows the rights of Washington insurance consumers in ways inconsistent with this... Read more
In its letter, UP argues that review is warranted in the above-named case.
In its brief, UP argues against the panel’s decision that would force insurance agents, reporting under a D&O policy at an early stage of litigation, to judge whether a claim is “related” to... Read more
In its brief, UP argues that a liability insurer cannot deny coverage for a policyholder’s defense costs solely because the policyholder did not seek the insurer’s consent to incur those costs in... Read more
In its memorandum, UP argues that the court’s partial summary judgment opinion must be unsealed unless the insurance company has a “compelling reason” to seal it, and no compelling reason exists... Read more
In its brief, UP argues that an insurance company must establish that the events leading to the outcome of an underlying case actually prejudiced the insurance company in a manner that... Read more