LOS ANGELES — Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act (NUAA) Section 25-2602.01(f) applies to a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) and renders an arbitration provision unenforceable, a California appeals panel held Nov. 22, finding that a trial judge did not err in refusing to compel arbitration in a breach of contract dispute (Citizens of Humanity, et al. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. B276601, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 2, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1038).
SAN FRANCISCO — A disability plan administrator did not abuse its discretion in offsetting a claimant’s long-term disability (LTD) benefits to account for Social Security disability income (SSDI) benefits that she receives for her dependents, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Nov. 17 in affirming a district court’s ruling for the plan (Susan Rene Jones v. Life Insurance Company of North America, et al., No. 16-16172, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23244).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A California federal bankruptcy judge on Nov. 16 entered a judgment of more than $3.5 million against an insurance company in a dispute over the amount of coverage owed to a company’s liquidating trust for asbestos personal injury claims, including attorney fees and a $60,000 penalty for the insurer’s “vexatious and unreasonable conduct” in the case (In re CFB Liquidating Corporation, f/k/a Chicago Fire Brick Co., et al., No. 01-45483, [Barry A. Chatz, as Trustee for the CFB/WFB Liquidating Trust v. Continental Casualty Company, No. 15-4136] N.D. Calif. Bkcy., 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 3938).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge on Nov. 16 remanded an insured’s claim seeking coverage for almost $500,000 incurred for the transport of her daughter from a hospital in Mexico to a hospital in Seattle by air ambulance because the plan administrator did not consider all of the available information before denying the claim on the basis that the air transport was not for an emergency (Aviation West Charters LLC, d/b/a Angel Medflight v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co., No. 16-436, E.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190114).
LOS ANGELES — A homeowner “who is aware, long before a rainstorm occurs and causes damage, of possible leakage” caused by construction defects cannot reasonably expect an insurer to pay for repairs on the theory that rainwater, and not the defects, caused the damage, a California appeals panel affirmed Nov. 14 (Simon Cohen, et al. v. Pacific Specialty Insurance Co., No. B276060, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 8, 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7779).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Nov. 16 granted a disability insurer’s motion to transfer a disability claimant’s suit to New Jersey federal court after determining that New Jersey is the more convenient forum for the parties and for the witnesses (Ernest Tarasovsky v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, No. 17-03464, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189926).
SAN DIEGO — A California appeals panel on Nov. 14 reversed an entry of summary judgment to an insurer on its duty to defend construction defect claims under subcontractors’ policies but affirmed summary judgment to a second insurer, finding that it has no duty to defend (McMillin Management Services L.P., et al. v. Financial Pacific Insurance Co., et al., No. D069814, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1000).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal district court did not err in granting an insurer’s motion for summary judgment in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit because the repair cost estimate decided by a neutral umpire “was determinative of whether” an insured would receive a total loss payment under the terms of its aviation insurance policy for a loss sustained after an aircraft accident, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Nov. 3 in affirming the lower court’s ruling (Minden Air Corp. v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co., No. 16-15712, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22091).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insurer and a real estate broker recently submitted their arguments in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether an exclusion in the policy precludes coverage in relation to an underlying lawsuit in which class members allege that the broker and individual agents received secret profits while acting as their real estate agents (Hanover Insurance Co. v. Paul M. Zagaris Inc. et al., 17-15477, 9th Cir.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A high-end wine collector has asked a California appeals court to reverse a lower court’s judgment in favor of an insurer in his lawsuit seeking coverage for an alleged multimillion-dollar loss to his wine collection due to fraud (David Doyle v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, No. G054197, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3).
SAN FRANCISCO — An Oregon federal judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of an insurer in a dispute over coverage for underlying carbon monoxide poisoning suits because the pollution exclusion in the policy at issue does not apply to carbon monoxide as it is not an irritant or contaminant, an insured argues in an Oct. 23 brief to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Colony Insurance Co. v. Victory Construction LLC, et al., No. 17-35357, 9th Cir.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California appeals panel on Nov. 6 affirmed a lower court’s finding that commercial general liability insurers have no duty to defend pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors against two underling lawsuits alleging that they engaged in a fraudulent scheme to promote the use of opioids for long-term pain to increase corporate profits, finding that the underlying actions can be read only as being based on the insureds’ deliberate and intentional conduct that produced injuries that were neither unexpected nor unforeseen (The Traveler's Property Casualty Company of America, et al. v. Actavis Inc., et al., No. G053749, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 976).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 31 reversed a district court’s denial of attorney fees to a disability plan acting on behalf the plan participant after determining that the plan is entitled to collect the attorney fees it incurred as result of the disability insurer’s appeal and that the district court’s denial of attorney fees was an abuse of discretion (John Paul Micha M.D., v. Sun Life Assurance Of Canada, Inc., No. 16-55053, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21800).
LOS ANGELES — A Walt Disney Co.’insurer on Oct. 26 filed an opposition to the insured’s motion to compel arbitration in a coverage dispute stemming from “pink slime” defamation claims against Disney’s subsidiary, arguing that the motion is too late and in clear violation of the unambiguous policy language (The Walt Disney Company v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., No. 17-07598, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A commercial general liability insurer recently asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling that it has a duty to defend its garment merchant insured against an underlying lawsuit, arguing that the lower court erred in finding that the insured was potentially liable for alleged damages arising from trade dress infringement in one of its advertisements (Great Lakes Reinsurance [UK] PLC v. In and Out Fashion Inc., 16-56425, 9th Cir.).
SAN DIEGO — An insurer and a reinsurer in a joint motion filed Oct. 25 ask a California federal court to dismiss a single claim for injunctive relief against the reinsurer in an action seeking payment of a $3.2 million judgment over alleged breach of reinsurance agreements as a result of a series of fraudulent transfers (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165582).
SAN DIEGO — After finding that development firms sufficiently pleaded the elements of a claim for violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) in relation to the alleged overcharging of deductible fees, a California federal judge on Oct. 26 denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss the claim (Bosa Development California Inc., et al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 3:17-cv-00945, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177870).
SAN FRANCISCO — A disability claimant is permitted to amend a complaint against a disability plan but only as it pertains a wrongful denial of benefits claim alleged under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a California federal judge said Oct. 19 (Vanmark Strickland v. AT&T West Disability Benefits Program, No. 17-1393, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174357).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Trump administration has the better legal argument in a case challenging the elimination of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments, and the relief sought by the plaintiff states would counterproductively harm their own residents, a federal judge in California said Oct. 25 in denying a preliminary injunction (The State of California, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 17-5895, N.D. Calif.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Insureds failed to allege a specific intent to defraud in a workers’ compensation insurance program, a California federal judge ruled Oct. 17, also denying the insureds’ attempt to invalidate a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Shasta Linen Supply Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., Nos. 16-00158 & 16-01211, E.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172638).