CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A North Carolina federal bankruptcy judge on Feb. 17 approved in a minute order a settlement between Chapter 11 debtors Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. and Hanson Permanente Cement Inc. and the joint scheme administrator for two insolvent British insurers, setting claim values for the debtors in the insurers’ run-off proceedings (In re Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., et al., No. 16-31602, W.D. N.C. Bkcy.).
NEW YORK — Chapter 11 debtor Rapid-American Corp. and asbestos claimants in its bankruptcy case do not have standing to challenge subpoenas served by insurers to asbestos claims-processing facilities seeking evidence of fraud in the asbestos trust system, and besides, the information sought is relevant to the debtor’s declaratory judgment action against the insurers, a New York federal bankruptcy judge held Feb. 12 (Rapid-American Corporation, et al. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, et al., No. 15-01095, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy., 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 378).
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — An insurer of Chapter 11 debtor Hanson Permanente Cement Inc. sought relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay Feb. 13 in North Carolina federal bankruptcy court so it can pursue $2.8 million in reimbursements from other insurers for settlement payments made to asbestos personal injury claimants under a 2009 agreement (In re Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., et al., No. 16-31602, W.D. N.C. Bkcy.).
HARTFORD, Conn. — A Connecticut federal judge on Feb. 7 granted a joint motion by a reinsurer and insurer to withdraw a motion to dismiss and a motion to enjoin and instead to litigate a $1.25 million breach of contract dispute over settlement of underlying asbestos claims (Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 17-02144, D. Conn.).
NEW YORK — In a coverage dispute over asbestos litigation costs, a reinsurer and insurer submitted letters on Feb. 9 to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concerning how a New York high court ruling applies to a reinsurance contract’s per-occurrence liability cap (Global Reinsurance Corporation of America v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 15-2164, 2nd Cir.).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on Feb. 6 denied an insured’s motion to dismiss as it pertained to the enforcement of a judgment reduction clause in a settlement agreement regarding a number of environmentally contaminated sites because it pertains to the claims at issue in the contribution suit, which has been pending in the New York federal court since 1984 (Olin Corp. v. Lamorak Insurance Co., et al., No. 84-1968, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20424).
OKLAHOMA CITY — The daughter and daughter-in-law of a named insured cannot assert claims for breach of contract and bad faith against an insurer in connection with a coverage claim for water and mold damages within an insured home because the daughter and daughter-in-law failed to prove that they are third-party beneficiaries under the policy at issue, an Oklahoma federal judge said Feb. 6 in granting an insurer’s motion to dismiss (Karen Annette Foster-Blackwood, et al. v. Liberty Insurance Corp., No. 17-1146, W.D. Okla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19275).
NEW YORK — In a dispute over an alleged profit arrangement between insurers and reinsurers, an estate’s executor established sufficient allegations to move forward with his tortious interference claim against a claims handler for its denial of payment of an underlying $7.1 million asbestos judgment, a New York justice ruled Jan. 24 (Ruby Konstantin v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al., No. 652897/2013, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — A Connecticut federal judge on Feb. 8 granted an insurer’s motion to dismiss its insureds’ amended complaint seeking damages as a result of defective concrete used in their home’s foundation after determining that the insureds failed to carry their burden of proving that coverage is afforded under the policy and that the insurer acted in bad faith when it denied their claim (Joseph Mazzarella, et al. v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co., No. 17-598, D. Conn., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20737).
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — An insurer’s suit seeking a declaration that no coverage is owed for underlying claims arising out of exposure to lime quarry dust must be dismissed in deference to the additional insured’s suit filed in Alabama state court against the insurer and others because Alabama has a substantial interest in litigating claims in state court, an Alabama federal judge said Feb. 9 (The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. G&R Mineral Services Inc., et al., No. 17-752, N.D. Ala., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21533).
MIAMI — Finding that “collapse” is not defined in an “all-risk” insurance policy, a Florida federal magistrate judge on Feb. 5 held that an insurer is obligated to cover sagging and falling down ceilings at a condominium complex (Key Biscayne Ambassador Condominium Association Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Co., No. 16-24564, S.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19440).
MISSOULA, Mont. — The efficient proximate cause of homeowners’ loss was repeated seepage or leakage of water over an extended period of time, which is an excluded peril under a homeowners insurance policy, a Montana federal judge ruled Feb. 5 (Tafford and LaRayne Oltz v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, No. 16-124, D. Mont., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18743).
ALBANY, N.Y. — After hearing oral arguments on Feb. 6, the New York Court of Appeals is set to decide whether an excess insurer owes coverage to its insured for the time periods when the insured was unable to purchase environmental liability insurance coverage even if the excess insurer’s policies specifically stated that coverage is afforded only for damages occurring during the policy period (KeySpan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., et al., No. APL-2016-00236, N.Y. App.).
TULSA, Okla. — An Oklahoma federal judge on Feb. 2 denied an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on breach of contract and bad faith claims in a dispute over coverage for earthquake and mold damages after determining that the insureds offered sufficient evidence to support their claims (Larry W. Thomas, et al. v. Farmers Insurance Co., No. 16-17, N.D. Okla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17418).
BALTIMORE — A Maryland federal magistrate judge on Jan. 31 ordered a defendant in a lead paint coverage suit to amend two answers in response to an insurer’s requests for admission after determining that the defendant can learn additional information regarding the insured property’s conditions from her grandmother and legal guardian who lived with the defendant at the insured property (CX Reinsurance Co. Ltd., et al. v. Homewood Realty Inc., et al., No. 15-3136, D. Md.; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15339).
ROCHESTER, N.Y. — The Fourth Department New York Supreme Court Appellate Division on Feb. 2 determined that a trial court properly found that no coverage is owed under professional liability and environmental professional liability policies for a criminal action filed against an insured and arising out of alleged violation of the Clean Air Act because the criminal action does not constitute a suit for which coverage is provided (Certified Environmental Services Inc. v. Endurance America Insurance Co., et al., No. 1510 CA 17-01125, N.Y. Sup., App. Div., 4th Dept., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 704).
WESTCHESTER, N.Y. — A New York state justice on Jan. 25 determined that insureds seeking coverage for damages to their home caused by water that seeped behind the home’s stucco façade are owed coverage under the policy at issue because the damages were caused by hidden decay, a covered cause of loss under the policy (John E. Parauda, et al. v. Encompass Insurance Co., No. 61128/15, N.Y. Sup., Westchester Co., N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 269).
UTICA, N.Y. — A reinsurer argues in its Jan. 19 reply brief for a new trial following a jury’s $64 million verdict that an insurer does not show that seven reinsurance agreements cover payments made to an insured in an asbestos claims settlement (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., No. 09-00853, N.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — In a coverage dispute over asbestos litigation costs, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 26 ordered an insurer and reinsurer to submit briefing concerning how a New York high court ruling applies to a reinsurance contract’s per-occurrence liability cap (Global Reinsurance Corporation of America v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 15-2164, 2nd Cir.).
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — The Michigan Court of Appeals on Jan. 25 affirmed a trial court’s ruling in favor of an insurer in a mold coverage dispute, agreeing with the trial court that the insured failed to prove that the insurer breached its contract and acted negligently in handling the claim (Sherry Horrocks, et al. v. Citizens Insurance Company of America, et al., Nos. 335972, 336480, Mich. App., 2018 Mich. App. LEXIS 198).