NEW ORLEANS — Insureds recently asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that a commercial general liability insurer has no duty to defend them against underlying copyright claims brought by an adult entertainment company, arguing that the underlying complaint triggered the insurer’s duty to defend by stating a claim for “advertising injury” (St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Giganews Inc., et al., 16-50914, 5th Cir.).
TALLAHASEE, Fla. — Parties in an insurance dispute recently asked the Florida Supreme Court to determine whether a Florida appeals court erred in affirming a trial court’s ruling that an insurer was liable for attorney fees as “costs” under certain policy provisions (Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Macedo, et al., No. SC16-935, Fla. Sup.).
RICHMOND, Va. — A company that filed a malpractice lawsuit against a law firm filed a brief on Nov. 21 in the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, contending that “under the plain language” of an insurance policy $10 million in coverage is available for the litigation (Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company v. Protostorm LLC, et al., Nos. 16-1835, 16-1853, 16-1866, 4th Cir.).
CINCINNATI — Parties in an insurance dispute asked the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently to determine whether a federal district court erred in determining that an insurance broker’s agent had no duty to advise an insured of an exclusion added to a policy renewal that was not part of the previous policy (Atic Enterprises Inc. v. Cottingham & Butler Insurance Services Inc., No. 16-6549, 6th Cir.).
ATLANTA— A sign company and an insurer recently submitted their arguments to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether underlying policies provided coverage for unsolicited "blast fax" claims (G.M. Sign Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., No. 16-14905, 11th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A married couple and two insurers argued in the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently over whether the insurers owe the couple for a pair of builders’ alleged negligence regarding the aborted building of a home (George Fleming, et al. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, et al., No. 16-4118, 10th Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — The estate of a man who purchased a policy from Bankers Life & Casualty Co. is asking the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn a summary judgment ruling in favor of the insurer, arguing that the company’s denial of benefits under the policy’s restoration provision is vexatious (Robert J. Brauer v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company, No. 16-3609, 8th Cir.).
AUSTIN, Texas — In briefs filed with the Texas Supreme Court, a couple and their contractor’s insurer dispute whether coverage for an underlying construction defects judgment against the insurer is precluded under an adversarial trial rule that an appeals court deemed inapplicable (Great American Insurance Co., et al. v. Glen Hamel, et al., No. 14-1007, Texas Sup.).
NEW YORK — An insurer claims in a Feb. 10 complaint filed in New York federal court that rescission of its product contamination insurance policy is warranted because the insured failed to disclose its knowledge of a possible contamination of its frozen vegetables (Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. CRF Frozen Foods LLC, et al., No. 17-1030, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel will hear oral arguments on March 7 in an appeal of a federal district court ruling granting an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on its insured’s insurance bad faith claim in which the lower court held that no genuine issue of material fact existed showing that the insurer acted in bad faith in its investigation and handling of the insured’s underinsured motorist claim (Chris “Wyatt” Hicks v. Progressive Casualty Insurance, No. 15-55953, 9th Cir.).
CHICAGO — The assignee of certain reinsurance receivables rights challenging a lower court’s finding that its claims against a reinsurer are untimely and the reinsurer argued recently in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals over whether the assignee’s claims are time-barred or whether the original reinsured’s insolvency affected the claim accrual date (Pine Top Receivables of Illinois, LLC v. Banco De Seguros Del Estado, No. 16-3499, 7th Cir.).
BISMARCK, N.D. — An insurer acted in bad faith by denying a claim for water damage to an insured apartment building because water damage is listed as a “specified cause of loss” in the policy, an insured claims in a Feb. 7 complaint filed in North Dakota federal court (Spring Glen Apartments LLP v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 17-28, D. N.D.).
RENO, Nev. — A federal district court did not err in finding that, without bad faith, the liability of an insurer that has breached its duty to defend is not increased beyond the limits of the policy, and the Nevada Supreme Court should answer a question posed by a federal appeals court in the affirmative, a group of trade associations of major property and casualty insurance companies argues in a Jan. 24 amicus brief filed in the Nevada Supreme Court (James Nalder, guardian ad litem on behalf of Cheyanne Nalder, et al. v. United Automobile Insurance Co., No. 70504, Nev. Sup.).
NEW YORK — A man who was convicted of fraud for lying to an insurance company when he sought to collect a life insurance benefit argues that the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals “must vacate” a lower court’s ruling and remand his case (Allen Blake v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 16-1383, 2nd Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — Parties in an insurance dispute recently asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Courts of Appeals to determine whether a federal district court erred in determining that an insurer owed an additional insured a duty to defend in an underlying construction defects lawsuit (Lyda Swinerton Builders Inc. v. Oklahoma Surety Co., No. 16-20195, 5th Cir.).
CHICAGO — An insurer has asked the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reject an insured assignee’s argument that a lower court erred in finding that the failure to obtain a storage agreement or warehouse receipt bars coverage for the contamination of products stored at the insured's warehouse (PQ Corp. v. Lexington Insurance Co., No. 16-3280, 7th Cir.).
ATLANTA — An insurer and a railway company recently submitted their arguments to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether coverage was available under a protective liability policy for injuries sustained by a driver who was in a vehicle accident at a railroad crossing (Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 16-14767, 11th Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse a Minnesota federal judge’s ruling that a policy’s pollution exclusion precludes an insurer’s duty to indemnify an underlying personal injury suit arising out of carbon monoxide poisoning because the federal judge’s interpretation of the pollution exclusion is contrary to Minnesota law, the appellants argue in a Jan. 25 reply brief (Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Christopher A. Klick, et al., No. 16-4000, 8th Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — A niece and a friend of a deceased doctor recently argued to the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals about whether the friend should be allowed to change the beneficiary designation on annuities owned by the doctor to herself (New York Life Insurance Company v. Rebecca Legault, et al., No. 16-3259, 3rd Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An agricultural business has told the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that information allegedly withheld by its federal crop insurer should have been divulged before the farm signed a settlement that led to a criminal indictment (POCO, LLC v. Farmer’s Crop Insurance Alliance, Inc., No. 16-35310, 9th Cir.).