SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In two putative class actions over a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), a California federal judge on July 25 approved a stipulation and proposed order by the parties consenting to the filing of documents under seal and the redaction of documents (Shasta Linen Supply Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., Nos. 16-00158 & 16-01211, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126405).
SAN DIEGO — In a California federal court dispute over breached reinsurance agreements from fraudulent transfers, a reinsurer on July 27 sought summary judgment against the former owners of an insurance brokerage company for payment of a $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California appeals panel on Aug. 1 affirmed a woman’s conviction on three counts of insurance fraud, holding that evidence presented during the trial sufficiently showed that she was not a passenger in a vehicle when it was struck by another vehicle (People of the State of California v. Deborah Carter, No. C083541, C084717, Calif. App., 3rd Dist., 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5269).
LOS ANGELES — Two insurers allege in a July 18 complaint filed in a California federal court that three other insurers owe equitable contribution for the defense of an underlying construction defects case against a mutual additional insured (St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., et al. v. Everest National Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-06222, C.D. Calif.).
FRESNO, Calif. — A used-vehicle seller and its affiliates, including an illegal shell reinsurance company, are accused by a California man in a July 17 complaint in a state court of being behind three fraudulent schemes in the sale of used vehicles and violating California’ unfair competition law (UCL) (Gustavo Diaz-Samaniego v. Paul Blanco’s Good Car Company Fresno Inc., et al., No. 18CECG02632, Calif. Super., Fresno Co.).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 26 affirmed a lower federal court’s finding that a commercial general liability insurer has no duty to defend its insured against an underlying trademark and trade dress infringement lawsuit because the insurance policy's intellectual property exclusion bars coverage for all claims (Secard Pools Inc, et al. v. Kinsale Insurance Company, No. 17-55534, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20839).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A trial court judge did not abuse his discretion when ordering a man to repay $5,502 to his employer for temporary disability benefits he unlawfully received, a California appeals court panel ruled July 24, finding that the evidence presented by the state sufficiently supported the amount (People of the State of California v. Michael William Williams, No. C086000, Calif. App., 3rd Dist., 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5057).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A disability claimant is not entitled to attorney fees and costs because she did not achieve success in an “action” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s attorney fee provision, a California federal judge said July 23, noting that the court did not rule on any substantive motions of the merits in the suit (Brenda Culbertson-Chavira v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 17-1702, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122872).
LOS ANGELES — In a California federal court, the liquidator of an insolvent medical professional liability insurer on July 16 answered a bank’s lawsuit seeking reimbursement under a letter of credit issued to the insurer to stay enforcement of an underlying $2.5 million medical malpractice judgment (MUFG Union Bank, N.A. v. Steven C. Taylor, No. 18-02772, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A liquidator on June 28 provided notice of entry of a California judge’s approval of a financial report and expenses of administration in an insurer’s liquidation proceeding (Dave Jones v. CastlePoint National Insurance Co., et al., No. CPF-16-515183, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co.).
SAN DIEGO — A California court on July 20 affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a health insurance company, holding that a noncontracted provider of medical services failed to show that the insurer violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) or that it misrepresented how much he would be paid for his services (James Ochi v. Anthem Blue Cross, et al., No. D071966, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4915).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A disability insurer did not act in bad faith in terminating an insured’s benefits, a federal judge in California said July 23 after determining that based on the insured’s misrepresentations about her ability to work, the insurer had a reasonable basis to terminate the benefits (Devra Bommarito v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 15-1187, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122853).
HONOLULU — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 20 affirmed a trial court’s award of fees to a homeowners association (HOA), holding that fees incurred by property owners seeking coverage for damage caused by water leaks were within the scope of the policy (Association of Apartment Owners of The Moorings Inc. v. Dongbu Insurance Co., Ltd., No. 16-16666, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20251).
SAN FRANCISCO — An agreement was void insofar as it provided that insurers were required to indemnify a subcontractor for its negligence, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 20, upholding the entry of summary judgment to insurers against a county as assignee of the subcontractor’s claims (First Mercury Insurance Co., et al. v. Westchester Surplus Line Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-35888, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20253).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge on July 17 extended deadlines for a class certification motion, a response and a reply in two putative class actions over a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Shasta Linen Supply Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., Nos. 16-00158 & 16-01211, E.D. Calif.).
FRESNO, Calif. — A California man filed a complaint on July 12 in a California court against a used-vehicle seller and its affiliates, including an illegal shell reinsurance company, accusing them of being involved in three fraudulent schemes in the sale of used vehicles and violating California’ unfair competition law (UCL) (Richard Harkins v. Paul Blanco’s Good Car Company Fresno Inc., et al., No. 18CECG02582, Calif. Super., Fresno Co.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California appeals court panel on July 16 affirmed a trial court’s ruling requiring a flower shop owner to pay $14,200 in restitution to a former employee after she pleaded no contest to fraud charges stemming from her failure to pay for unemployment and workers’ compensation insurance, finding that while the former employee’s work records “were a mess,” the trial judge properly calculated the amount needed to make the victim whole (People of California v. Cynthia Ann Smith, No. A153490, Calif. App., 1st Dist., 5th Div., 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4769).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on July 12 granted motions filed by insurers to dismiss claims against them in relation to an alleged unlawful scheme that involved one insurer profiting from the sale of its policies on behalf of two other insurers, holding that insureds failed to state claims for relief under California’s unfair competition law (UCL), false advertising law (FAL) and for financial elder abuse, but the judge granted them leave to file an amended complaint (Simon Levay, et al. v. AARP Inc., et al., No. 17-09041, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116585).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Insurers of decedents who owned a dry cleaning business and the property on which the business was located owe no coverage for environmental contamination discovered on the property’s site because the environmental contamination was not sudden and accidental as required by the policies’ pollution exclusions, a California federal judge said July 2 (Miller Marital Deduction Trust, et al. v. Estate of Mark B. DuBois, et al., No. 16-1883, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111348).
LOS ANGELES — A landscape company filed a notice of appeal on July 6 regarding a California federal judge’s final judgment issued that same day confirming a reinsurer’s $82,130.44 arbitration award against it (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. O’Connell Landscape Maintenance Inc., No. 18-00683, C.D. Calif.).