Mealey's Insurance Pleadings

  • April 25, 2017

    Parties Argue In 7th Circuit Over Policy Coverage For Urea Use Settlement

    CHICAGO — Former owners of a whey products company and an insurer that provided insurance coverage for the sale of the company recently submitted their arguments before the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals as to whether a district court properly granted summary judgment for an insurer in relation to coverage for the settlement of an underlying lawsuit that was threatened against them (Daniel Ratajczak v. Beazley Solutions Ltd., 16-3418, 7th Cir.).

  • April 25, 2017

    2 Appellants Tell Nevada Supreme Court That Each Is Due Attorney Fees

    CARSON CITY, Nev. — Two women injured in a car accident on Feb. 7 asked the Nevada Supreme Court to rule that they are entitled to $3,000 each in attorney fees rather than $3,000 together in their underinsured motorist claim against Progressive Northern Insurance Co. (Angelica Rios, et al. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company, No. 71225, Nev. Sup.).

  • April 25, 2017

    Woman Says Her Contract Claim Against Insurer Is Not Precluded

    BOSTON — A Massachusetts woman argues that she has a legitimate right to withdraw from an annuity contract she entered with an insurance company, and she contends that the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse a lower court’s decision that dismissed her claim against the insurer because issue preclusion does not apply (Yana Edquist v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., No. 16-2056, 1st Cir.).

  • April 25, 2017

    Insurer Intervenes In Suit Alleging Sexual Assault By Rutgers Football Player

    TRENTON, N.J. — A homeowners insurer filed a declaratory judgment complaint in federal court in New Jersey on April 21 after intervening in a lawsuit alleging that two Rutgers University students, including one football player, sexually assault another student on campus (K.L. v. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, et al., No. 16-9270, D. N.J.).

  • April 25, 2017

    Court Confused Reporting Requirement With Reporting Deadline, Insured Argues

    CINCINNATI — A residential landlord insured has asked the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling in favor of a tenant-discrimination liability insurer in a coverage dispute arising from a housing discrimination charge brought against the insured (GMS Management v. Evanston Ins. Co., No. 16-4018, 6th Cir.).

  • April 24, 2017

    Rescission Ends Coverage For Lead Paint Injuries, Insurer Says To 4th Circuit

    RICHMOND, Va. — Having been rescinded, a commercial general liability insurance policy did not provide coverage for lead paint claims as a judgment creditor was not an intended beneficiary of the policies at the time of rescission, the insurer argues in a March 30 brief to the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (CX Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Brayon Loyal, No. 16-2180, 4th Cir.).

  • April 24, 2017

    Injured Party: Insurer Can’t Deny Coverage Under Unlicensed Operator Exclusion

    PHILADELPHIA — Where a licensed owner of a vehicle and an unlicensed operator are both liable for an accident caused by the unlicensed operator, the owner’s insurer can’t fully disclaim coverage based on its unlicensed operator exclusion, an injured party claims in his appellant brief filed Feb. 7 in the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Richard Duncan v. Omni Insurance Company, No. 16-3834, 3rd Cir.).

  • April 24, 2017

    Reinsurer, Alleged Reinsured Argue Over What Constitutes Elements Of Agreement

    PHILADELPHIA — A reinsurer and its alleged reinsured countered each other recently in a federal court in Pennsylvania over whether the alleged reinsured is incorrect in its assertions regarding a cession statement, which the reinsurer says is an essential element of the parties’ reinsurance agreement (R&Q Reinsurance Company v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, No. 16-cv-01473, E.D. Pa.).

  • April 18, 2017

    No Claim For Wrongful Act; No Coverage, Insurer Argues To Federal Court

    TULSA, Okla. — An insurer recently argued to an Oklahoma federal court that an underlying breach of contract lawsuit brought against its insured by a former business partner fails to allege a wrongful act to trigger coverage under a professional liability insurance policy (Doug Schwegman, d/b/a Schwegman Insurance and Financial Services v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 16-0730, N.D. Okla.).

  • April 12, 2017

    Company Seeks Coverage For Damage To Transformer Caused When It Removed Parts

    ST. LOUIS — Damage to the core of a transformer that occurred when Electric Power Systems International Inc. (EPS), the company charged with removing external parts for transport, attempted to remove one part is covered by EPS’s insurance policy because the damage was incidental to EPS’s work, EPS argues in March 13 reply brief filed in the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Electric Power Systems International, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 16-3927, 8th Cir.).

  • April 11, 2017

    Insurer Files Complaint, Says No Coverage Owed For Underlying Asbestos Claims

    CLEVELAND — No coverage is owed to an insured for thousands of underlying asbestos bodily injury claims because the coverage limits of the primary policies have not been fully exhausted, an excess insurer argues in a lawsuit filed April 5 in Ohio federal court against the insured (Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Co., f/k/a Stonewall Insurance Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 17-714, N.D. Ohio).

  • April 11, 2017

    Law Firm, Insurer Argue In 9th Circuit Whether 7 Suits Constitute 1 Claim

    SAN FRANCISCO — In briefs filed before the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a law firm and its former insurer dispute whether seven real estate investment fraud lawsuits brought against the firm should be considered one claim for coverage purposes under professional liability policies (Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc. v. Davies Lemmis Raphaely Law Corp., et al., No. 16-55711, 9th Cir.).

  • April 10, 2017

    Appellant Seeks Reversal Of District Court’s Dismissal Of Bad Faith Suit Against Insurer

    PITTSBURGH — The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse a district court’s dismissal of a bad faith complaint because the district court improperly found that the plaintiff could not allege a claim of bad faith based on an insurer’s conduct in a state court lawsuit, the plaintiff argues in a March 9 reply brief (Marc Homer v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., No. 16-3686, 3rd Cir.).

  • April 7, 2017

    Court Erred In Finding Parties Were Properly Aligned, Appellants Argue To 6th Circuit

    CINCINNATI — Appellants have asked the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that parties were properly aligned in a dispute over whether additional coverage is owed to satisfy an underlying $3,736,278 judgment against an insured for breaching its duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain its common areas (Evanston Ins Co. v. Housing Authority of Somerset, 16-6691, 6th Cir.).

  • April 7, 2017

    Insurer: 4th Circuit Should Reverse Workers’ Compensation Coverage Benefits Ruling

    RICHMOND, Va. — An insurer filed an appellant brief in the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 16, arguing that the court should reverse the judgment of a district court because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an underlying workers’ compensation case based on the West Virginia workers’ compensation administrative system (Brickstreet Mutual Insurance Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 16-2204, 4th Cir.).

  • April 6, 2017

    Federal Law Does Not Apply To State Law Procurement Claims, Insureds Tell 5th Circuit

    NEW ORLEANS — Insureds have asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling in favor of an insurer and the United States of America in a lawsuit arising from the insurer's cancellation of a federal flood insurance policy following Hurricane Ike (Robert Spong and Kerry Spong v. Fidelity National Property and Casualty Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-41165, 5th Cir.).

  • April 6, 2017

    Insurer Says Lower Court Erred By Finding Policy Exclusions Do Not Apply

    ATLANTA — An insurer tells the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a Feb. 24 reply brief that its directors and officers liability policy does not cover wrongful acts by officers of a bank in receivership because the wrongful acts allegedly spring from earlier wrongful acts that were perpetrated before the policy coverage period (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, et al., No. 16-16702, 11th Cir.).

  • April 6, 2017

    Reinsured Says It Is Not Its Burden To Show Reasons For Settling Asbestos Claims

    NEW HAVEN, Conn. — An insurer told a federal court in Connecticut on March 20 that its reinsurer is putting requirements on it that are not universally accepted as necessary under the follow-the-settlements doctrine, thus bringing a summary judgment motion to the state of being fully briefed (Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, f/k/a The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Century Indemnity Company as successor to Insurance Company of North America, No. 16-cv-00170, D. Conn.).

  • March 28, 2017

    Insurers Sue Saudi Arabia Under Justice Against Sponsors Of Terrorism Act

    NEW YORK — Insurers on March 23 filed a new complaint against Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and/or the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia & Herzegovina (SHC) in a federal district court, contending that facts and related evidence presented by victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have taken on additional significance as a result of the U.S. Congress’ enactment of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) this past September (Underwriters Inc., et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 17-02129, S.D. N.Y.).

  • March 21, 2017

    Carrier Seeks Reformation Of Policy To Include An Intended Pollution Exclusion

    ATLANTA — No coverage is owed for contamination claims arising out of the operation of a battery plant because the underlying claim against the insured did not meet the policy’s deductible and a pollution exclusion, inadvertently left out of the policy through mutual mistake, precludes coverage, an insurer argues in a March 15 motion for summary judgment filed in Georgia federal court (ACE American Insurance Co. v. Exide Technologies Inc., et al., No. 16-1600, N.D. Ga.).