SAN FRANCISCO — A “damage to your work” exclusion in a commercial general liability insurance policy precludes coverage for an insured’s stucco work itself but not the damage to surface paint, a California federal judge ruled Aug. 21 (First Mercury Insurance Co. v. Kinsale Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-00071, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142073).
LOS ANGELES — An insured’s insurance breach of contract and bad faith claims against his homeowners insurance provider were barred by the policy’s one-year limitations period to bring any action after a loss, a California appellate panel ruled Aug. 27 in affirming a state trial court’s grant of the insurer’s motion for summary judgment (David Watts v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, No. B276123, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 8, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5798).
LOS ANGELES — The liquidator of an insolvent medical professional liability insurer filed an amended answer on Aug. 29 in a California federal court lawsuit seeking reimbursement under a letter of credit issued to the insurer to stay enforcement of a $2.5 million medical malpractice judgment (MUFG Union Bank, N.A. v. Steven C. Taylor, No. 18-02772, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Aug. 15 determined that an insurer is entitled to summary judgment because the cost of redesigning a temporary shoring system is not a cleanup cost under an environmental legal liability policy (Essex Walnut Owner L.P. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Co., No. 17-6435, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138276).
LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on Aug. 1 denied a life insurer’s request for a new trial or judgment as a matter of law on breach of contract and bad faith claims and denied its motion to strike a reinsurance underwriter’s testimony (DCD Partners LLC, et al. v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 15-03238, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135792).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insurer has no duty to indemnify two lawsuits arising out of disputes on work performed on condominium buildings, a California federal judge ruled Aug. 10, granting in part summary judgment to the insurer but denying judgment on the duty to defend in light of triable fact issues on several exclusions (United States Liability Insurance Co. v. Contempo Homeowners Association, No. 18-02722, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135570).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge in California on Aug. 6 ruled that insureds timely filed their breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit against their insurer and that the insurer failed to show “beyond doubt” that their claims were barred by the statute of limitations (Daniel Foster, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 18-0485, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133897).
SAN DIEGO — Claims for breach of contract and bad faith arising out of an insurer’s denial of coverage for an underlying wrongful eviction suit will proceed, a California federal judge said July 26 after determining that the insurer failed to prove that the underlying suit is excluded by any of the applicable policy exclusions (Black Mountain Center L.P., et al., v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, No. 17-1776, S.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125496
SEATTLE — A federal district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of an insurer on a third-party bad faith counterclaim because the third parties failed to show that any possible bad faith in the handling of their claim resulted in any harm, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled July 31 in affirming the lower court’s opinion (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Shelbie Frounfelter, et al., No. 17-35313, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21204).
LOS ANGELES — Three lawsuits were filed by insurers on Aug. 8 in a California federal court asserting equitable contribution claims over defense costs for construction defects cases (St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., No. 18-06794; St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. Lexington Insurance Co., No. 18-06803; St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. Lexington Insurance Co., No. 18-06799, C.D. Calif.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge on Aug. 6 dismissed a disability claimant’s suit with prejudice following the parties’ filing of a joint stipulation for dismissal (Brenda Culbertson-Chavira v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 17-1702, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132014).
LOS ANGELES — The Second District California Court of Appeal on Aug. 6 reversed a trial court’s ruling in favor of a former property owner after determining that the trial court erred in determining that the former property owner did not have a duty to indemnify an insured for environmental remediation costs pursuant to an indemnification agreement (Greenwich Insurance Co. v. Argonaut Group Inc., et al., No. B281218, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 5, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5352).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Insurers argue in a July 6 reply brief to a California appeals court that a state tax code does not preclude them from pursuing equitable and contractual subrogation claims against various subcontractors that allegedly owed a duty to defend a developer in an underlying construction defects case (Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, et al. v. Engel Insulation Inc., No. C085753, Calif. App., 3rd Dist.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court should grant review of a disability claimant’s petition for writ of certiorari in a dispute over the offsetting of a claimant’s long-term disability (LTD) benefits to account for Social Security disability income (SSDI) benefits received on behalf of the claimant’s dependents because the plan administrators did not apply the language of the LTD plan as written, the claimant says in a June 22 reply brief (Susan Rene Jones v. Merck Sharpe & Dohme Corp., et al., No. 17-1478, U.S. Sup.).
FRESNO, Calif. — Claims for bad faith and punitive damages alleged against an insurer in an environmental contamination coverage suit can move forward, a California federal judge said Aug. 1 after determining that the insured has sufficiently alleged facts in support of the claims (City of Fresno v. Tokio Marine Specialty Insurance Co., No. 18-504, E.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129224).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge on Aug. 2 granted an insured’s motion to stay an insurer’s declaratory judgment lawsuit challenging coverage for underlying actions over a fire at a music event that killed 36 people, finding that the majority of the factors in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of Am. weigh in favor of a stay (American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida v. Russell E.L. Butler, No. 18-01973, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130092).
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.).