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

Year:
2009
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Issue:
ERISA
State:
--United States--

Based on long-standing Supreme Court precedent relating to prevailing party status under fee-shifting statutes, Social Security disability benefit claimants who win remands are entitled to see... Read more

Year:
2002
Court:
California Court of Appeal
Issue:
Punitive Damages
State:
California

UP filed a request for publication of a decision supporting the insured’s claim for punitive damages and the application of Kransco (no comparative bad faith) to first party cases.

Year:
1999
Court:
Arizona Supreme Court
Issue:
Med-pay coverage
State:
Arizona

An insurance company should not be allowed to sell med-pay coverage without informing insured that if they are covered by an HMO, the med-pay coverage is worthless.

Year:
2006
Court:
California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3
Issue:
Post Claims Underwriting
State:
California

Health and Safety Code section 1389.3 was designed to stop the practice of post-claims underwriting. Blue Shield should not be allowed to engage in post-claims underwriting and rescind its policy... Read more

Year:
2003
Court:
Issue:
Exclusions
State:
New York

The purpose of UP’s brief was to educate the court on a wide range of insurance policy exclusions that are creating claims disputes.

Year:
1996
Court:
Oregon Supreme Court
Issue:
Doctrine of insurability; occurence
State:
Oregon

Doctrine of insurability; personal injury; occurrence.

Year:
2008
Court:
New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Department 4
Issue:
Products Completed Operations Hazard
State:
New York

UP urges the Court to reverse the lower court’s ruling that a Products Completed Operations Hazard provision includes a restrictive condition that the policyholder physically possesses its product... Read more

Year:
2006
Court:
California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3
Issue:
Genuine Dispute, Brandt fees
State:
California

The genuine dispute doctrine should not apply when the insurer fails to investigate the insured's claim thoroughly and bases its denial of a duty to defend on an insufficient investigation. Indeed... Read more

Year:
2003
Court:
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 1
Issue:
Public adjuster fees as element of damages
State:
Arizona

UP filed a letter brief requesting publication of decision because the case resolves the question of the ability of the policyholder to claim public adjuster fees as an item of damage where... Read more

Year:
1997
Court:
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Issue:
Waiver of Defenses
State:
New Jersey

Claims handling; waiver of defenses not raised in denial letter