SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In two putative class actions over a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) of hundreds of California businesses that bought a workers’ compensation program, plaintiffs argue in a Dec. 11 brief that a California federal court should certify a class because whether the program and RPA are illegal is a common question for all class members (Shasta Linen Supply Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. 16-00158, Pet Food Express Ltd., et al. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. 16-01211, E.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should grant an insured’s motion for judicial notice regarding briefs filed in two cases that address similar facts to the insured’s argument in its appeal of a district court’s ruling that California law, rather than Alabama law, applies to an environmental contamination coverage suit, the insured argues in response to the insurers’ objection to the motion for judicial notice (Arrow Electronics Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., et al., No. 18-55810, 9th Cir.).
SEATTLE — Environmental liability investigation costs incurred by an insured as a result of an agreement with the Washington Department of Ecology should be classified as defense costs and not as damages under an insurer’s policies, the insured argues in a Dec. 3 brief filed in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Richland, Nos. 18-35543, 18-35558, 9th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a dispute over a $26 million arbitration award, reinsurers in a Dec. 5 motion request that a District of Columbia federal judge reconsider his ruling allowing a financial services company to amend its complaint to assert claims against them for breach of an implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
RICHMOND, Va. — The obtainer of a $910,148 default judgment entered against a design company in a negligent design dispute recently asked the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to hold the design company’s insurer responsible for the judgment, $22,210 in attorney fees and $370 in court costs (Gateway Residences at Exchange, LLC v. Illinois Union Insurance Company, No. 18-1491, 4th Cir.).
BATON ROUGE, La. — Wright National Flood Insurance Co. recently answered two complaints filed in a Louisiana federal court seeking coverage for August 2016 flood damage, arguing that the insureds’ claims are barred to the extent they failed to submit a timely and proper proof of loss pursuant to their Standard Flood Insurance Policies (Rebecca and Louis Deshotel v. Wright National Flood Insurance Co., No. 18-202, and Stephanie LaValley v. Wright National Flood Insurance Co., No. 18-00268, M.D. La.).
NEWARK, N.J. — In an Oct. 29 reply brief filed in a New Jersey federal court, a federal flood insurer reinforced its motion to dismiss an insured's breach of contract lawsuit arising from alleged flood damage to a commercial warehouse (Hakim International Trading, et al. v. The Standard Fire Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-02874, D. N.J.).
RICHMOND, Va. — The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is free to consider an appeal in a declaratory judgment action even while a consolidated bad faith portion of the case remains pending, the parties tell the court in supplemental briefing on the impact of recent Supreme Court precedent. Oral arguments in the cases are scheduled for Dec. 11 (Founders Insurance Co. v. Richard Ruth’s Bar & Grill LLC, et al., George Giannaras, et al. v. Founders Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-1282(L), 17-1284, 17-1344, 17-1348, 4th Cir.).
AUSTIN, Texas — An insured recently asked the Texas Supreme Court to review an appeals court’s reversal of a ruling in its favor in a dispute over homeowners insurance coverage for the insured’s Hurricane Ike damage (Ozier Hurst v. National Security Fire & Casualty Co., et al., No. 17-0719, Texas Sup.).
MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Dec. 11 in an insurance dispute where an insurer sought a declaration that it did not owe a duty to defend a medical supply company in an underlying lawsuit for trademark infringement based on an exclusion in the commercial general liability policy at issue (West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. Ixthus Medical Supply Inc., et al., No. 2017AP909, Wis. Sup.).
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — A federal flood insurer on Nov. 13 answered a Florida insured’s federal complaint alleging that it failed to adequately compensate him for his structural building damage caused by Hurricane Irma (Keith Chatman v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company, No. 18-01204, M.D. Fla.).
MIAMI — A trial court correctly determined that a policy’s total pollution exclusion bars coverage for underlying claims alleged against a fire protection systems contractor because the fire suppression foam that was released in an air hangar is clearly a pollutant under the terms of the policy at issue, the insurer argues in a recent appellee brief filed in the Third District Florida Court of Appeal (Advanced Systems Inc. v. Gotham Insurance Co., No. 3D18-1744, Fla. App., 3rd Dist.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In letter briefs filed Nov. 6 at the direction of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Yahoo! Inc. and its commercial general liability (CGL) insurer debate the impact of an August 2017 Ninth Circuit ruling on the present appeal pertaining to insurance coverage for claims brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 17-16452, 9th Cir.).
BOSTON — The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse a district court’s ruling in favor of a disability plan because the plan was not prejudiced by a 47-day delay in the filing of the disability claimant’s appeal, the claimant argues in a Nov. 28 appellant brief (Theresa Fortier v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co., No. 18-1752, 1st Cir.).
SAN DIEGO — In a dispute over a $3.2 million judgment, a principal to an insurance services company argues to a California federal court in a Nov. 21 brief that a reinsurer offers no evidence on its claim of a fraudulent transfer, so seizure of her home or proceeds from the sale of it should be denied (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — In a Nov. 14 reply brief to its summary judgment motion and opposition brief to a partial summary judgment motion, a reinsurer tells a New York federal court that an insurer was required to report a claim in 2010 but instead provided notice six years too late (Endurance Assurance Corp. v. Florists’ Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-09955, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A reinsurer and its entities argue in a Nov. 5 brief that a New York federal court should dismiss a run-off insurer’s tort and quasi-contract claims because the case over the alleged mismanagement and misuse of $320 million is one for breach of contract (Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-06658, S.D. N.Y.).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — An insurer on Nov. 6 answered an insured’s assignee’s breach of contract and declaratory judgment complaint seeking coverage for an underlying $60,413,112 consent judgment entered against the insured in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violation dispute, asserting six affirmative defenses (Jacob Horn, et al. v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., No. 18-80762, S.D. Fla.).
HARTFORD, Conn. — In a Nov. 21 brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court, an insured seeking coverage for underlying asbestos and silica claims objects to the Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association’s application to file an amicus curiae brief, arguing that rejection of the application is warranted because there is significant overlap between the amicus and the insurers involved in the coverage dispute (R.T. Vanderbilt Co. Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., et al., Nos. SC 20000, SC20001, SC20003, Conn. Sup.).
ST. LOUIS — An insurer and a mortgage company recently submitted arguments to the Missouri Court of Appeals, disputing whether a trial court’s ruling that the mortgage company was not entitled to coverage related to an underlying lawsuit because it did not timely assert that its insurance claims should be affirmed (Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. v. Underwriters At Lloyd's London, No. ED106566, Mo. App.).