“Thank you does not say enough.”
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"
The underlying case involves insurance companies denying the policyholders' claims for insurance coverage after they discovered severe cracking in their basement walls under policies covering... Read more
In this amicus brief, UP argues that labor should not be depreciated by insurance companies in their determination of actual cash value.
**UPdate 4/25: The Kentucky Supreme Court dismissed the petition as settled.
In its brief, UP focuses on three grounds for reversal of the district court opinion:
UP's Amicus Curiae Letter in Support of Petition for Review, or in the alternative Request for Depublication of Villanueva v.
"Substantial impairment of structural integrity" is the applicable standard for "collapse" and need not be clarified.
Insurance companies may not preemptively discern an intent to cause injury when a complaint alleges accidental injury to nullify the insurer's duty to defend.
In its brief, UP argues that the District Court erred in determining Travelers did not owe a duty to defend based on Exclusion (j)(5).