PITTSBURGH — Mortgagors and a reinsurer in a mortgage insurance reinsurance scheme case tell a Pennsylvania federal court in an Oct. 6 reply brief that homeowners fail to offer reasoning as to why the mortgagors and reinsurer are not entitled to judgment on a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) claim under Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals law (Linda Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., No. 12-00058, W.D. Pa.).
ORLANDO, Fla. — In an Oct. 12 brief in Florida federal court, a commercial general liability insurer opposes a motion for judgment as to its duty to defend in a data breach coverage dispute, arguing that the hotel that experienced the breach, which is claiming resulting losses, is not an insured under the policy (St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Rosen Millennium Inc., No. 6:17-cv-00540, M.D. Fla.).
HELENA, Mont. — An insurance company recently asked the Montana Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s summary judgment decision that it granted to a woman who had been involved in an automobile accident. The insurer contends that the trial court erred because it was not clear that the expenses sought by the insured were necessitated by the accident (Jennifer Teeter v. Mid-Century Insurance Company, No. DA-17-0241, Mont. Sup.).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — An insured has asked the Florida Supreme Court to reverse an appeals court’s finding that an insurer was wrongfully denied an opportunity to argue that it could repair an insured’s water damaged kitchen and that hiring a general contractor was unnecessary (David Gal v. Prepared Insurance Co., No. 16-2190, Fla. Sup.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A subcontractor’s insurer must provide a home developer with independent counsel in an action brought by homeowners suing for defects because the insurer is defending two sides in the action, the home developer argues in a reply brief filed Aug. 9 in the Third District California Court of Appeal (Centex Homes, et al. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, No. C081266, Calif. App., 3rd Dist.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An apartment complex property manager’s insurer is partially liable for an injury settlement that exceeded the one-year liability limits paid to a former tenant, the owners’ insurer argues in a reply brief filed Sept. 1 in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, because the manager’s insurer’s other-insurance clause is not enforceable and California’ anti-stacking provision must be enforced (Atain Specialty Ins. Co. v. California Capital Ins. Co., No. 16-17221, 9th Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — An insured has asked the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s finding that a federal flood insurer's letter rejecting its insured's proof of loss for Superstorm Sandy damage constituted a written denial of the claim and, therefore, triggered a Standard Flood Insurance Policy's (SFIP) one-year statute of limitations to bring a lawsuit (Anthony Migliaro v. Fidelity National Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 17-1434, 3rd Cir.).
ATLANTA — Insureds have asked the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that there is no further coverage owed for lawsuits alleging that they have intentionally engaged in wrongful antitrust and monopolizing conduct in an effort to dominate the health care service industry (Health First Inc., et al. v. Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation, et al., No. 17-11181, 11th Cir.).
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Oct. 23 in a suit involving an insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify its insureds who seek coverage for environmental contamination cleanup costs at their commercial property (Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co. v. Juan and Maria Garcia, No. 17-1224, 7th Cir.).
ST LOUIS — Carriers of workers’ compensation insurance and an insured recently submitted their arguments to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals as to whether a district court’s summary judgment ruling for the insurers, who were accused of overcharging premiums, should be overturned (Wireco Worldgroup Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-1432, 8th Cir.).
EL PASO, Texas — A shareholder of car dealerships and his reinsurance companies on Oct. 4 filed an opposition in Texas federal court to dismissal of their complaint alleging a scheme to take control over the dealership and to decline selling vehicle-protection products that are reinsured by the reinsurers (Richard C. Poe II, et al. v. Anthony E. Bock, et al., No. 17-00232, W.D. Texas).
AUSTIN, Texas — A New Zealand reinsurer argues in a Sept. 12 reply brief that a Texas federal court should transfer venue or compel arbitration of a reinsurance agreement dispute with an insolvent insurer because a breach of contract claim is subject to an arbitration clause (Gramercy Insurance Co. v. Contractor’s Bonding Ltd., No. 17-723, W.D. Texas).
GULFPORT, Miss. — In an Oct. 2 rebuttal brief supporting its motion to compel discovery related to its computer fraud counterclaims in a decade-old false claims suit related to Hurricane Katrina claims, State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. calls its discovery requests “straightforward,” while arguing that the counterdefendants failed to show that the requests are burdensome or cover privileged material (United States, ex rel. Cori Rigsby, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 1:06-cv-00433, S.D. Miss.).
CINCINNATI — A farming cooperative argues in a Sept. 12 brief to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that it did not lose status as an entity approved to make premium-rebate payments for 2005, 2006 or 2007 reinsurance years after its merger with a nongrandfathered cooperative (Sunrise Cooperative Inc. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 17-3807, 6th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — The owners of a pizza shop and its liquor liability insurer recently filed their arguments with the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether a district court’s ruling that the insurer had no liability to defend or indemnify the shop in an underlying lawsuit filed by a minor who was served alcohol and subsequently raped by the owner of the establishment should be affirmed (Century Surety Co. v. Scott Seidel, et al., 17-10026, 5th Cir.).
ATLANTA —An appellant and its subrogee insurers have asked the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s ruling that granted a French energy company's motion to compel arbitration in Germany of claims asserted by numerous insurers in relation to a failed engine (Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC, et al. v. Coverteam SAS, No. 17-10944, 11th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insured argues in an Aug. 11 reply brief that the California Supreme Court should find that California’s common-law notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy and applies both to a policy’s notice provision and consent provision in an environmental contamination coverage suit (Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., No. S23950, Calif. Sup.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A group of insurance companies has asked a Delaware Superior Court to find that principals in a company are not entitled to coverage for the costs they incurred in negotiating settlements in two lawsuits brought by stock shareholders because the negotiations occurred without the insurers’ consent (Arch Insurance Company, et al. v. David H. Murdock, et al., No. N16C-01-104-EMD, Del. Super., New Castle Co.).
RICHMOND, Va. — A commercial climbing gym told the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 29 that a federal judge in Maryland erred in finding that an insurance company was required to provide only $100,000 in coverage for the gym’s defense of a negligence suit, asserting that extrinsic evidence presented as part of an underlying trial showed that a 14-year-old girl who claims that she was sexually assaulted was not in its control seven of the eight times the events occurred (Gemini Insurance Company v. Earth Treks, Inc., No. 17-1652, 4th Cir.).
CHICAGO — The purchaser of a long-term care insurance policy on June 12 told the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a lower court erred in dismissing her claim that Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (MetLife) failed to tell her and a class of other purchasers she seeks to represent that their premiums could go up after they signed up for a policy that halved premiums after age 65 (Margery Newman, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, No. 17-1844, 7th Cir.).