"US Small Buiness Administration Office of Disaster Assistance is pleased to honor Karen Reimus in recognition of her perseverance, dedication and optimism in assisting California Communities rise above the impact of the Southern California Wildfires."
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"
Amicus Library
Year:
2015
Court:
Georgia Supreme Court
Issue:
Absolute Pollution Exclusion
State:
Georgia
Claims for personal injury resulting from lead-based paint ingestion are not excluded from coverage pursuant to pollution exclusions typically included in commercial general liability (“CGL”)... Read more
Year:
2015
Court:
New York Court of Appeals
Issue:
Regulatory Authority, Prior Approval of Policies
State:
New York
Under the California Insurance Code, the Worker's Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau is required to submit policy forms to the Department of Insurance for review before they may be approved for... Read more
Year:
2015
Court:
Washington Supreme Court
Issue:
Unfair Debt Collection Practices, Scope of State Consumer Protection Law
State:
Washington
Under the Washington state Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") consumers are protected from harassing and misleading collection notices from unscrupulous debt collectors who target, at the behest of... Read more
Year:
2015
Court:
U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
Issue:
Attorney-Client and Work-Product Privilege, Tripartite Relationship
State:
Florida
The District Court set a dangerous precedent in regards to the discovery and use of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product immunity in insurance coverage cases.
Year:
2015
Court:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
Issue:
Notice Prejudice, Insured's Duty to Defend
State:
Maryland
UP addressed two issues in its brief: (1) under Maryland law, an insurer must show actual prejudice in order to escape coverage for a valid claim that is reported after the policy deadline; and (2... Read more
Year:
2015
Court:
California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two
Issue:
Loss Settlement Valuation for Actual Cash Value Policies
State:
California
Year:
2015
Court:
Issue:
Bad Faith, Defense Cost Reimbursement
State:
California
UP submitted letters to the California Judicicial Council regarding proposed revisions to California Civil Jury Instructions ("CACI") Nos. 2330-2337 and 2351:
Year:
2015
Court:
California Supreme Court
Issue:
Independent (Cumis) Counsel
State:
California
UP and the Consumer Attorneys of California submitted a letter supporting a petition for review in an important case involving a policyholder's right to independent counsel. A policyholder's r
Year:
2015
Court:
U.S. Court of Appeals. 9th Circuit
Issue:
Attorney's Fees , Environmental Liabilities
State:
Oregon
Under Oregon law, policyholders who sue their insurance company for delaying or denying legitimate claims can recover their attorney's fees.
Year:
2015
Court:
U.S. Supreme Court
Issue:
Health insurance and Social Security reimbursement under ERISA
State:
U.S. Supreme Court
UP weighed in because the Court’s decision could have broad-reaching implications for participants in disability plans as well as health plan participants. Most, if not all, employer-sponsored