NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Insurers and a mortgage lender argue in a Sept. 1 reply brief that a homeowner does not meaningfully address their request for a stay of discovery but rather rehashes arguments over the filed-rate doctrine in their pending motions to dismiss the homeowner's Connecticut federal court lawsuit alleging a kickback scheme over force-placed insurance (FPI) (Robert R. Lewis v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., No. 20-552, D. Conn.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — The operator of general acute care hospitals and its related entities on Sept. 15 ask the Delaware Superior Court to order a health care umbrella insurer to respond to discovery requests over its reinsurance segment in a coverage dispute regarding a $73.21 million verdict against one of the operator's entities in an underlying medical malpractice suit (Steadfast Insurance Company v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., No. N18C-11-127, Del. Super.).
FORT WORTH, Texas — A Cayman Islands reinsurer in a Sept. 11 motion seeks dismissal of an insurance agent's preemptive declaratory judgment suit in a Texas federal court for breach of a quota share reinsurance agreement because the agent does not allege an "actual controversy" over the reinsurer's potential future demands for the return of any premiums (Contractor Managing General Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Greenlight Reinsurance, Ltd., No. 20- 996, N.D. Texas).
NEW YORK — A Manhattan law firm on Aug. 19 voluntarily dismissed without prejudice its class action alleging in a New York federal court that its “all risk” commercial property insurer breached their contract by refusing to pay claims related to the novel coronavirus (Siegel & Siegel, et al. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, No. 20-04993, S.D. N.Y.).
LOS ANGELES — A Los Angeles resident on Aug. 19 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of his class action complaint alleging in a California federal court that an insurance policy specifically covered his trip cancellation due to California’s civil authority orders in response to the novel coronavirus pandemic (Richard Robbins v. Generali Global Assistance, Inc., et al., No. 20-04904, C.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — A reinsurer argues in a Sept. 3 opposition brief that a New York federal judge should reject an insurer's "after-the-fact effort to add" $459,652.22 reflecting "unsecured paid losses" to a judgment in the insurer's favor on breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims (AmTrust North America, Inc. v. Signify Insurance Ltd., et al., No 18-3779, S.D. N.Y.).
MIAMI — A French reinsurance company on Sept. 3 moved to dismiss a theater operator's proposed class action in a Florida federal court for pandemic loss, saying the reinsurer was not a party to an all-risk insurance policy and cannot be held liable for the acts of its second-tier subsidiary (Actors Playhouse Productions, Inc. v. SCOR Se, et al., No. 20-22981, S.D. Fla.).
LAS VEGAS — An insurer recently asked the Nevada Supreme Court to answer a certified question from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in the affirmative and find that "under Nevada law, there is a quasi-contractual right for an insurer to recoup defense fees and costs expended in defending uncovered claims" (Nautilus Insurance Company v. Access Medical LLC, et al., No. 79130, Nevada Sup.).
NEW YORK — Responding to Dish Network Corp.'s appeal, a commercial general liability insurer on Aug. 14 asked the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to affirm a lower federal court's ruling that it has no duty to defend the company in an underlying lawsuit because the policy's media exclusion bars coverage (Dish Network Corporation, et al. v. Ace American Insurance Company, No. 20-628, 2nd Cir.).
CHICAGO — An insured on Aug. 31 filed a class action complaint against an insurer in a federal court in Illinois, alleging that the insurer breached its long-term care insurance policies by increasing premiums without increasing the premiums for all of its other insureds who were in the same premium class, further contending that the insurer's "brochure, outline of coverage, and policy further create an enforceable expectation that future increases in premiums and purchases of additional coverage would not take place if the automatic benefit increase option for inflation protection is purchased" (David Sieving, et al. v. Continental Casualty Company, No. 20-05127, N.D. Ill.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Suggesting that a financial service company distorts and mischaracterizes the evidence, reinsurers and reinsurance brokers on Aug. 31 pushed back as to why they and not the financial service company should be awarded summary judgment by a District of Columbia federal court in a breach of contract dispute over a $26 million award (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
CINCINNATI — An insured on Aug. 27 responded to an insurer's objections to an Ohio federal magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the insurer's motion to dismiss a breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit seeking crime protection insurance coverage for an alleged fraudulent scheme through which the insured's employee stole $1,954,329.13 in commission payments (M&C Holdings Delaware, Partnership, et al. v. Great American Insurance Company, No. 20-121, S.D. Ohio).
CHICAGO — McDonald's Corp. and former and current franchise owners on Aug. 27 sued their insurer in a federal court in Illinois for breach of contract and declaratory relief, seeking coverage for an underlying class action injunction alleging that they are taking inadequate steps to contain COVID-19 in the workplace (McDonald's Corporation, et al. v. Austin Mutual Insurance Company, No. 20-05057, N.D. Ill.).
NEW YORK — An owner and operator of five Broadway theaters on Aug. 24 sued its insurers in a New York federal court for breach of contract and bad faith and seeks a declaration as to coverage for its "substantial financial losses" stemming from the shutdown of its theaters because of the novel coronavirus, noting that the Broadway theater industry has no reason to believe that it "will be permitted to open—in any capacity—anytime soon" (Jujamcyn Theaters LLC v. Federal Insurance Company, et al., No. 20-06781, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN DIEGO — A commercial property insurance policy's pollution exclusion and virus or bacteria exclusion do not bar coverage for business interruption and extra expense costs incurred as a result of the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders issued by the state of California, an insured restaurant owner says in an Aug. 20 complaint filed against an insurer in California federal court (JAJ Group Inc., et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 20-1620, S.D. Calif.).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — An insurer recently asked the Florida Supreme Court to find that state law does not allow an insured to recover extracontractual, consequential damages in a first-party breach of contract lawsuit over Hurricane Frances property damage (Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Manor House, LLC, No. SC19-1394, Fla. Sup.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — An insured recently asked a California appeals court to reverse two summary judgments rulings in favor of a commercial general liability insurer and an insurance broker, arguing that the insurer failed to present compelling evidence or eliminate triable issues of material fact regarding whether rescission of the policy was warranted in a coverage dispute arising from a construction defects lawsuit (Michael Favreau v. Navigators Insurance Company, et al., Nos. G056718 and G056938, Calif. App., 4th Dist.).
GALVESTON, Texas — A health insurer failed to include in its breach of contract case all parties to an HMO excess reinsurance agreement, a reinsurer says in an Aug. 21 motion in Texas federal court seeking dismissal of the case arising from the reinsurer's refusal to reimburse $1,145,236.33 for a patient's pre-heart transplant care (Health First Health Plans, Inc. v. American National Insurance Co., No. 20-226, S.D. Texas).
SEATTLE — A covenant judgment ruling improperly considered future potential risk and costs and would reward the plaintiffs with double recovery, an insurance group told the Washington Supreme Court in urging review on June 16. But in a July 16 response, the asbestos plaintiffs told the court that it was entirely appropriate to consider the difficulty in recovering a judgment when analyzing a settlement and that nothing in the ruling conflicts with precedent (United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Robert T. Ulbricht, et al., No. 98434-4, Wash. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An insured on Aug. 15 asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) to transfer and coordinate lawsuits seeking travel insurance coverage for losses arising from the forced cancellation of travel plans due to the novel coronavirus pandemic, arguing that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is the best forum (In Re: Generali Covid-19 Related Travel Insurance Litigation, JPMDL).