The Coalition is committed to battling insurance fraud in all forms and through all three branches of our governmental system. We work with executive branch regulators and fraud directors across the U.S. for appropriate safeguards. Since our founding we have worked with state legislators to enact laws to protect American consumers.

More recently, the Coalition has recognized the need for the fraud-fighting message to be heard by our nation’s courts on the state and federal levels. The Coalition has filed amicus, meaning “friend of the court,” briefs in key cases where clearly identifiable issues impacting insurance fraud are at stake. Links to briefs filed by the Coalition are provided below.

We are a unique voice to judges deciding these important issues based upon the diversity of interests represented within the Coalition. Where appropriate, the Coalition also submits briefs in cooperation with our key fraud-fighting partner organizations. Doing so increases our impact. Courts listen when the nation’s leading anti-fraud organizations speak with a united voice.

The Coalition reviews cases from across the country to find those where our position should be heard. However, our best source for identifying the key cases where our support is needed is from our members and others in the fraud-fighting community. One of the benefits of Coalition membership is the ability we bring to support both legislative and judicial issues to strengthen and empower those who seek to battle insurance fraud. We invite submission of cases appropriate for amicus support. Cases for consideration should be submitted to Matthew Smith, the Coalition's director of government affairs and general counsel. Cases are then reviewed by our amicus committee using the following criteria:

• Issues: Are the key facts of the case and pleadings properly framed to address substantive anti-fraud issues? Do the issues presented further the mission and goals of the Coalition and its members?

• Implications: Does the case have national implications? Greater weight is given to those cases where a “wrong” decision would open the door for similar actions in other states; for instance, a case about how fraud bureaus are funded would have an effect beyond the state where the case is filed. Even if the case has national implications, is the issue important enough to the fraud fight to warrant intervention?

• Applicability: Does the issue further the Coalition’s mission by furthering the legitimate interests of all constituents?

• Timing: When is the amicus brief due? The closer a case is submitted to the filing deadline is a heavily-weighted deciding factor. Sufficient research and drafting time are necessary to adequately prepare briefs for filing.

• Size of jurisdiction: Is the issue presented in a large or small state? Greater weight is given to larger states since those courts often have more national implications. A case arising in New York, California or Florida, for example, may have more broad-reaching impact than one from a smaller state.

• Judicial level: What level of court is hearing the case? Normally amicus filings are limited to state or federal courts of appeal or supreme courts. Both civil and criminal cases at those levels may be appropriate for amicus brief filings.

Each of these criteria will be evaluated in deciding cases where filings of amicus briefs may be appropriate. However, all submissions are encouraged and will be reviewed thoroughly. All cases submitted will be evaluated based on the individual case facts and merits in conjunction with the goals and objectives of the Coalition, and where appropriate, our strategic partners.

For more information, please contact Matthew Smith.

Use the below links to review previously filed Coalition amicus briefs:

Florida Supreme Court: RESTORATION 1 OF PORT ST. LUCIE, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. ARK ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner.

Washington State Supreme Court: MOUN KEODALAH and AUNG KEODALAH, husband and wife, Respondents, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, and TRACEY SMITH and JOHN DOE SMITH, husband and wife, Petitioners.

New York Court of Appeals: ANDREW CAROTHERS, M.D., P.C. v PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE CO.

Supreme Court of Texas: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners v. REHAB ALLIANCE OF TEXAS, INC. d/b/a STEEPLECHASE FAMILY HEALTHCARE AND STEEPLECHASE PAIN MANAGEMENT & SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, SHEILA SMITH f/k/a SHEILA GOYER, DENNIS SMITH, D.C., THE DIAGNOSTIC & INJURY CENTER OF HOUSTON, L.L.C., and IHSAN SHANTI, M.D., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Kentucky: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY v. RONIESHA ADAMS, F/K/A RONIESHA SANDERS; and APPELLEE RONIESHA ADAMS, as Mother and Guardian of B.A., a Minor Child.

Illinois Appellate Court, First Judicial District: STATE OF ILLINOIS EX REL. JOCELYN ZOLNA PITTS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT V. ATI HOLDINGS, INC., ET. AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES, REVIEWING COURT NO. 14-0520.

California Supreme Court: Jeffrey Hambarian v. Orange County Superior Court and the People of the State of California

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: COMMONWEALTH v. JAMES N. ELLIS, JR., JAMES N. ELLIS, SR., RONALD D’AUTEUIL, NICHOLAS J. ELLIS, MARTHA PORCARO, AND HELEN D. BILOURIS.