NEW YORK — An insured’s complaint seeking additional coverage for consigned property damaged by water after a pipe burst in a commercial building must be dismissed because the insurer paid the policy’s limit for property of others and the insured is not owed any additional coverage under the policy’s business personal property provision, a New York justice said Aug. 14 in granting the insurer’s motion for summary judgment (Talisman Services Inc. v. Hermitage Insurance Co., No. 151351/2016, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).
TAMPA, Fla. — The Second District Florida Court of Appeal will hear oral arguments on Sept. 24 in a dispute over whether coverage exists for water damages incurred by insureds as a result of an underground water line that was never capped after a well was abandoned (Ross Simon, et al., v. Security First Insurance Co., No. 2D17-4166, Fla. App., 2nd Dist.).
PHILADELPHIA — The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 14 affirmed a bankruptcy court’s ruling in favor of an asbestos liability insurer after determining that a protective injunction in debtor W.R. Grace & Co.’s reorganization plan applies to the asbestos claims asserted by the Montana claimants against the insurer (In re: W.R. Grace & Co., et al., No. 17-1208, 3rd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22488).
OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma federal judge on Aug. 13 dismissed a proposed class action complaint seeking to recover the cost of earthquake insurance premiums from a number of injection well operators after determining that the plaintiffs failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted (Matt Meier, et al. v. Chesapeake Operating LLC, et al., No. 17-703, W.D. Okla.).
LAS VEGAS — A Nevada federal magistrate judge on Aug. 2 denied an insurer’s motion to strike the expert testimony submitted by an insured to refute the opinions offered by the insurer’s bad faith expert in a water damage coverage dispute, but said the insured’s expert can testify at trial only if the insurer’s expert testifies (Robert Danganan v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., No. 17-2786, D. Nev., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129738).
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).
TACOMA, Wash. — Several insurers of Chapter 11 debtor Fraser’s Boiler Service Inc. on Aug. 7 appealed federal bankruptcy court rulings approving settlements under which other insurers will pay $13.7 million to a liquidating trust as part of the debtors’ reorganization plan (In re: Fraser's Boiler Service, Inc., No. 18-41245, W.D. Wash.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — In a one-page per curiam order, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Aug. 7 denied an appeal of a lower court’s ruling affirming that reinsurance facultative certificates covered defense expenses in excess of a liability cap and that insurers were entitled to interest on certain proofs of loss for asbestos claims issued before 2013 (Century Indemnity Co., et al v. OneBeacon Insurance Co., No. 45 EAL 2018, Pa. Sup., 2018 Pa. LEXIS 4075).
CONCORD, N.H. — On Aug. 2, a New Hampshire trial justice approved a $2,252,000 settlement between the liquidator of The Home Insurance Co. and an additional insured regarding silica and asbestos bodily injury claims (In the matter of the liquidation of The Home Insurance Co., No. 03-E-0106, N.H. Super., Merrimack Co.).
MONROE, La. — A Louisiana federal judge on Aug. 9 denied dismissal of a commercial general liability insurer’s coverage dispute regarding allegations that a subcontractor’s faulty work led to children being sick from excess moisture (Houston Specialty Insurance Co. v. Ascension Insulation & Supply Inc., et al., No. 17-1010, W.D. La., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134558).
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).
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — In an asbestos coverage dispute, a reinsurer and an insurer wrote letters on Aug. 7 to a New York federal court regarding issues such as follow-the-fortunes doctrine and res judicata that they plan to raise in their summary judgment motions (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. R&Q Reinsurance Co., No. 15-270, N.D. N.Y.).
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).
FORT MYERS, Fla. — A Florida federal judge on Aug. 6 granted in part an insurer’s motion to dismiss an insured’s breach of contract case but allowed an insured leave to amend (Marram Corp. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., No. 18-204, M.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131532).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An insurer has no duty to cover water and mold damages in an insureds’ beach house because the insureds left the home for more than 72 hours and failed to turn off the water supply to the home as required by the policy, the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said July 31 in affirming a district court’s ruling (Vasilli Katopothis, et al. v. Windsor-Mount Joy Mutual Insurance Co., et. al., No. 16-7132, D.C. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21108).
ALLENTOWN, Pa. — In a dispute over allegedly defectively manufactured clothes dryers, a Pennsylvania federal judge on Aug. 3 severed each of an insurer’s 86 claims and dismissed 64 claims over which the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Electrolux Home Products, No. 18-00699, E.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130241).
NEW YORK — The representative for future asbestos claimants in Johns-Manville Corp.’s landmark Chapter 11 case did not adequately represent a holder of nonderivative claims against the debtor’s insurance broker, so an asbestos claimant’s estate can proceed with its state court action against the broker, a New York federal judge held July 27 in reversing a bankruptcy court ruling (The Bogdan Law Firm v. Marsh USA, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-01228, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126962).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — No coverage is owed to insureds seeking coverage for damages to their home’s foundation walls caused by a chemical reaction in the concrete used in the foundation because the insureds failed to prove that a collapse of the foundation will occur in the foreseeable future, a Connecticut federal judge said July 31 (Christopher D. Lester, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 16-909, D. Conn., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127711).
NEW YORK — An insurer in a letter to a New York federal court on July 19 asks for a pre-motion conference ahead of its motion to stay and compel arbitration of a declaratory judgment lawsuit brought by two reinsurers regarding claims asserted under facultative reinsurance contracts for losses of $2.5 million (Continental Insurance Company of New Jersey, et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 18-4715, S.D. N.Y.).
PORTLAND, Ore. — An Oregon federal judge on July 19 granted an insured’s motion for partial summary judgment on the applicability of a pollution exclusion in two insurers’ policies after determining that the insurers failed to prove that the exclusion’s exception for sudden and accidental releases does not apply to the insured’s claims (Siltronic Corp. v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, et al., No. 11-1493, D. Ore., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126184).