WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court should deny review of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ May 12 dismissal of an insured’s appeal in an oil and gas well damage suit for lack of jurisdiction because there is no circuit split regarding the finality of judgments, the insurer contends in its Jan. 11 response brief to the high court.
OKLAHOMA CITY — BancInsure Inc.’s receiver argues in a Dec. 15 sur-reply to an Oklahoma federal court that its declaratory judgment action against a directors and officers insurer should not be dismissed because his suit is not a “direct action” to recover money damages against an insurer.
NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should affirm a district court’s confirmation of a $25 million arbitration award entered against an excess liability insurer in an environmental contamination coverage dispute because the district court did not err in granting the insured’s motion to compel arbitration as the lower court properly construed the policy’s alternative dispute resolution provision, the insured says in a Jan. 5 appellee brief.
CHICAGO — An insured on Nov. 25 asked the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to impose sanctions on an insurer for its “frivolous” third appeal in a coverage dispute arising from underlying trade dress infringement claims that were brought against the insured almost nine years ago.
SAN FRANCISCO — A retailer insured on Jan. 7 asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to certify a question to the California Supreme Court in its lawsuit seeking coverage under a comprehensive business insurance policy for its claimed losses following the state’s “Stay at Home” order in response to the novel coronavirus pandemic, arguing that “profound legal, economic, and practical consequences will follow from the determination of whether the phrase ‘physical loss of or damage to’ in business interruption insurance policies reasonably includes government-imposed shutdown orders issued amid COVID-19.”
PHILADELPHIA —A Philadelphia building owner insured recently asked the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of its commercial general liability insurer, arguing that an underlying abuse-of-process claim alleges facts that constitute a malicious prosecution claim that triggers coverage under the policy.
FORT WORTH, Texas — Amendments to quota share reinsurance agreements regarding “claw back” payments went immediately into effect and removed future obligations, an insurance agent argues in its Jan. 7 summary judgment motion to Texas federal court.
SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel should affirm a federal district court’s damages calculation and attorney fee award, as well as its denial of insureds’ second motion for summary judgment, in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit stemming from an automobile insurance coverage dispute because although the insurer disagrees with the lower court’s findings, those rulings were supported by the lower court’s “factual conclusions and application of federal and state law,” the insurer argues in a Jan. 4 appellee brief filed in the Circuit Court.
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Willis Re Inc. in separate Dec. 17 reply briefs offers further support on why a Puerto Rico federal court should deny a former employee’s preliminary injunction over an employment agreement’s nonsolicitation clause and why the case should be dismissed or transferred to a Florida venue.
GALVESTON, Texas — A reinsurer argues in a Dec. 30 reply brief that a Texas federal court should dismiss a health insurer’s statutory claims and order three entities of the insurer to be added to the insurer’s dispute concerning the reinsurer’s refusal to reimburse $1,145,236.33 under an HMO excess reinsurance agreement for a patient’s care before a heart transplant.
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — The Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund (IMSIF) in a Dec. 28 brief seeks dismissal of an Illinois federal court lawsuit, arguing that a railroad company fails to allege a claim or issue preclusion regarding lawsuits brought by the IMSIF seeking reimbursement as subrogee for mine subsidence claims the reinsurer paid on behalf of subrogor property owners (Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund, No. 20-3281, C.D. Ill.).
OKLAHOMA CITY — Under applicable Tennessee law, a telecommunications company’s excess insurer and a reinsurer have a duty to indemnify an underlying personal injury lawsuit, a woman argues to an Oklahoma federal court in a Dec. 9 reply brief in further support of her motion for summary judgment in the reinsurer’s declaratory judgment action (Star Insurance Company v. K&J Telecommunications, LLC, et al., No. 19-960, W.D. Okla.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — In separate Dec. 7 briefs, a former Willis Re Inc. employee tells a Puerto Rico federal judge to deny the reinsurance brokerage firm’s bid to dismiss a declaratory relief suit over enforcement of an employment agreement’s nonsolicitation clause and, instead, enjoin it from enforcing the clause (Anthony Phillips v. Willis Re Inc., No. 20-1635, D. Puerto Rico).
LOS ANGELES — “One of the largest talent agencies in the world” sued its commercial property insurers in a California court on Nov. 13 for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging that they are “part of the Chubb group of insurance companies” that “has adopted a universal practice of denying coverage for all business interruption claims associated with SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and subsequent events” (United Talent Agency, LLC v. Vigilant Insurance Company, et al., No. 20STCV43745, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A professional liability insurer contends in a Dec. 4 reply brief to a Connecticut federal court that a settlement of negligence allegations against a captive manager is a “governmental” claim that is capped and was paid under the policy’s $25,000 sublimit and not under the policy’s $3 million limit as suggested by an insolvent insurer’s receiver (Trinidad Navarro v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. 20-1305, D. Conn.).
MIAMI — An English reinsurer cannot cite any authority that a multilateral treaty preempts breach of contract and bad faith claims over insurers’ violations of duties to airlines, individuals who were awarded an $844 million default judgment in connection with a plane crash say in their Dec. 3 reply brief to a Florida federal court in support of remand (Priscila Elen De Souza Lima, et al. v. Linea Aerea Merida Internacional De Aviacion, et al., No. 20-23631, S.D. Fla.).
LOS ANGELES — An insurer on Nov. 5 asked a California federal court to reopen its lawsuit seeking a declaration that it has no duty under two business owners insurance policies to cover its insured’s claimed business income losses related to the novel coronavirus, arguing that although the court determined in dismissing the insured’s counterclaims that it has no duty to provide coverage for the insured’s alleged losses in connection with its Los Angeles office, the court has not yet resolved the same question regarding the insured’s alleged losses to its New York office (Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America v. Geragos & Geragos, Nos. 20-3619, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A recent divided ruling that found Amazon.com Inc. to not be the “seller” of fire-causing defective hoverboards conflicts with Arizona law and consumer protection principles, State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. tells the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a Dec. 1 petition for rehearing en banc (State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., No. 19-17149, 9th Cir.).
RALEIGH, N.C. — Three borrowers, which are named in separate suits over their alleged breach of loan agreements, filed identical opposition briefs on Dec. 2 telling a North Carolina federal court that their bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty counterclaims against an insurer in rehabilitation satisfy minimal pleading requirements to overcome the dismissal stage (Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company v. Kite Asset Management, LLC, No. 20-371; Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company v. Summerville Asset Management, LLC, et al., No. 20-432; Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company v. TAC Investments, LLC, No. 20-453, E.D. N.C.).
OKLAHOMA CITY — A telecommunications company named in a woman’s personal injury suit threw support on Dec. 2 behind the woman’s summary judgment motion in a reinsurer’s Oklahoma federal court coverage dispute because the telecom’s excess insurer and reinsurer have a duty to indemnify (Star Insurance Company v. K&J Telecommunications, LLC, et al., No. 19-960, W.D. Okla.).