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:
1996
Court:
California Supreme Court
Issue:
Allocation and Contribution
State:
California

Insurance companies should not be allowed to profit from inconsistent coverage positions. / Allocation

Year:
2009
Court:
U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
Issue:
State:
Texas

This appeal addresses two issues of importance to policyholders across the country: (1) can “property damage” to the insured’s “product” be considered an “accident” or “occurrence” for purposes of... Read more

Year:
1996
Court:
U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
Issue:
Trademark Infringement, Advertising Injury
State:
Michigan

Trademark infringement claims should be covered under standard form advertising injury policy.

Year:
2007
Court:
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Issue:
Errors and Omissions; Late Notice
State:
Pennsylvania

Errors and Omissions, or "E&O" insurance. If an insurance company attempts to avoid its coverage obligations under a claims-made policy due to “late notice,” the insurance company must bear... Read more

Year:
2003
Court:
Supreme Court of Illinois
Issue:
Late Notice
State:
Illinois

Late notice; all sums; joint and several; allocation

Year:
2003
Court:
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Issue:
Coverage
State:
Pennsylvania

Since the term “collapse” in the policy is ambiguous and connotes only a substantial impairment of a building’s structural integrity, there must be coverage for “imminent collapse” Court quotes UP... Read more

Year:
2005
Court:
California Supreme Court
Issue:
Duty to Defend
State:
California

Request for Rehearing--UP argued that the Court of Appeal improperly ignored the State Farm policy language obligating the insurer to defend both claims and suits. By ignoring this language the... Read more