SAN FRANCISCO — A California appeals panel on Sept. 30 affirmed a grant of summary adjudication in favor of a professional liability insurer but reversed and remanded for the lower court to reopen the summary adjudication proceedings to permit the insurer to claim reimbursement of all underlying fees and costs it incurred defending its lawyer insured against legal malpractice claims (Berkley Assurance Company v. Law Offices of David M. Wiseblood, et al., No. A155070, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6619).
NEW ORLEANS — In a mandate issued Sept. 23, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals announced that an insured and the Federal Emergency Management Agency filed a stipulation withdrawing the insured’s appeal of a lower federal court’s dismissal of his lawsuit alleging that he was wrongfully denied $141,274.50 in insurance proceeds for Superstorm Sandy damage to his Long Beach, N.Y., home (David Clutter v. William B. Long, et al., No. 18-3520, 2nd Cir.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge in California on Sept. 30 granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment in its declaratory judgment lawsuit, finding that a special events policy’s assault and battery exclusion bars coverage for underlying negligence and premises liability claims brought against a concert promoted insured (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London subscribing to Policy No. EH7713140 v. WorldOne Presents, LLC, et al., No. 18-02432, E.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169474).
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A federal judge in Kentucky on Sept. 30 entered judgment three days after refusing to exercise jurisdiction over an insurer’s lawsuit seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify against an underlying lawsuit arising from several injuries and one fatality that occurred at a musical event that was hosted by the insured (Secura Insurance v. TFGBAR, LLC, et al., No. 18-00313, W.D. Ky., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166276).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on Sept. 27 entered judgment in favor of general and excess liability insurers one day after granting their motion to reconsider an earlier ruling that they had a duty to defend their insured against an underlying copyright infringement suit, finding that they had no duty to defend (Jovani Fashion, Ltd. v. Federal Insurance Company, et al., No. 17-4518, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165898).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California appeals panel on Sept. 26 affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a homeowners insurance policy’s business pursuits/rental exclusion precludes coverage for an underlying lawsuit arising from a porch collapse injury, rejecting the insureds’ argument that the exclusion’s ordinarily incident exception applies (Paul Terrell, et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Company, No. A152541, Calif. App., 1st Dist. Div. 1, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 931).
CINCINNATI — In reversing and remanding a lower federal court, a majority of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 25 found that an insurance policy’s “dishonest acts” exclusion does not bar coverage for a steel products producer’s lawsuit alleging that a trade association published false statements about its products (Evanston Insurance Co. v. Certified Steel Stud Association, Inc., et al., Nos.18-3406 and 3407, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28937).
MIAMI — In a lawsuit filed Sept. 20 in Florida federal court, the manufacturer of prepackaged vegetable trays seeks a ruling that an insurer owes coverage to the manufacturer as an additional insured for claims arising out the contamination of produce used in the vegetable trays (Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A. Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-23917, S.D. Fla.).
CHICAGO — A federal judge in Illinois on Sept. 20 held that insureds failed to comply with their insurance policy’s requirement of timely notifying the insurer of underlying claims brought by the National Hockey League, granting the insurer’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company v. The Hockey Cup, LLC, et al., No. 18-8142, N.D. Ill., Eastern Div., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160278).
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 23 held that a breach of contract exclusion in an insurance policy endorsement rendered the policy’s errors and omissions professional liability coverage illusory, reversing and remanding a lower court’s ruling in favor of the insurer in its declaratory judgment lawsuit (Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. DVO, Inc., No. 18-2571, 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 28714).
TAMPA, Fla. — A federal judge in Florida on Sept. 16 said that a medical doctor who is an officer and director of a number of now-insolvent insurers settled his coverage dispute with his excess insurer concerning an underlying clawback claim filed by the insolvent insurers’ receiver (Akshay M. Desai v. Navigators Insurance Co., No. 18-1843, M.D. Fla.).
SPOKANE, Wash. — A Washington appeals panel on Sept. 19 affirmed a lower court's ruling in favor of an insurer in a dispute over coverage for an underlying lawsuit brought by minority shareholders (Grange Insurance Association v. Mielke Brothers Inc., et al., No. 361951, Wash. App., Div. 3, 2019 Wash. App. LEXIS 2428).
SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on Sept. 17 held that an insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify its plumbing company insured under an insurance policy’s businessowners liability coverage, reserving his ruling on whether an underlying trademark infringement suit triggers the policy’s cyber liability and data breach response coverage (Mid-Century Insurance Company v. Hunt's Plumbing & Mechanical LLC, et al., No. 19-0285, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160098).
DETROIT — A Michigan appeals panel on Sept. 17 held that “there is no other conclusion but that” a husband intended to take a knife and kill his wife, despite the fact that he was delusional, reversing and remanding a lower court’s ruling that a homeowners insurer owes coverage for the underlying wrongful death lawsuit (State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Company v Noah Ravenscroft, et al., No. 345377, Mich. App., 2019 Mich. App. LEXIS 5538).
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A federal judge in Alaska on Sept. 13 granted Allstate Insurance Co.’s motion for a default judgment against its insured in its lawsuit seeking a declaration that it has no duty to indemnify him against an underlying lawsuit over the alleged suicide death of his daughter (Allstate Insurance Company v. Estate of Maia Grace Elizabeth Walker, et al., No. 19-0063, D. Alaska).
BALTIMORE — A federal judge in Maryland on Sept. 11 denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit seeking a declaration that a professional liability insurance policy provides up to $1 million in coverage for underlying claims for injuries and damages arising from a March 2017 fire that occurred at an assisted living facility, finding that the declaratory judgment lawsuit is appropriately beforethe federal court (Tarhonika Vaughn, et al, v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, No. 18-3375, D. Md., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155723).
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A federal magistrate judge in Rhode Island on Sept. 12 held that an emergency room nurse’s underlying negligence lawsuit brought against a doctor arose out of the doctor’s rendering of professional services that triggered coverage under health care professional liability insurance coverage, further finding that coverage is limited by the policy’s workers’ compensation exclusion (ProAssurance Specialty Insurance Company, Inc. v. Ricky W. McCullough, M.D., et al., No. 18-343, D. R.I., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155865).
AUSTIN, Texas — According to its Sept. 13 orders pronounced, the Texas Supreme Court accepted a certified question from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to determine whether there’s a policy language exception to Texas’ eight-corners rule in a dispute over homeowners coverage for underlying claims that insureds were negligent in failing to supervise and instruct their 10-year-old grandson, who died while in their care (State Farm Lloyds v. Janet Richards, et al., No. 19-0802, Texas Sup.).
LOS ANGELES — A federal judge in California on Sept. 4 found that a courier company insured’s arguments are “too speculative” to establish a potential for employment practices liability coverage for underlying putative class claims brought by its delivery drivers, finding that the insurer has no duty to defend (Unity Courier Services, Inc. v. Hudson Insurance Co., No. 18-08143, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151566).
ST. LOUIS — A majority of a Missouri appellate panel on Sept. 3 found that because an “objectively reasonable attorney” would have understood that legal malpractice claims survived a client’s death, an attorney insured had a duty to notify its professional liability insurer of a potential malpractice claim when he applied to renew his policy (Elizabeth A. Ruiz v. The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company, No. ED106926, Mo. App., 2019 Mo. App. LEXIS 1381).