WASHINGTON, D.C. — A financial services company abandoned reliance on reinsurance agreements in its lawsuit seeking to recover a $26 million arbitration award directly from reinsurers, a credit insurer argues in a Dec. 1 reply brief to a District of Columbia federal court, seeking dismissal of the breach of contract lawsuit (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
CONCORD, N.H. — After The Home Insurance Co.’s liquidator sought approval of a settlement with an insured for $42 million, an insurer who has a contribution claim against the insured says in a Nov. 30 response to a New Hampshire trial court that it has no objection to the settlement (In the Matter of the Liquidation of The Home Insurance Co., No. 03-E-0106, N.H. Super., Merrimack Co.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — An insolvent insurer argues in a Nov. 22 reply brief to the South Carolina federal court that a bank is barred from asserting its contractual indemnification counterclaim in a dispute over the bank’s role as trustee of a reinsurance trust with an insolvent insurer because the bank has no contractual right (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A reinsurer on Oct. 10 asked the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the dismissal of its complaint against Federal Crop Insurance Corp. (FCIC) in a reinsurance dispute (ACE American Insurance Co., et al v. Federal Crop Insurance Corp., 16-5348, D.C. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A group of investor plaintiffs have asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a district court ruling and find that the lower court erred when it applied New York law to an insurance coverage dispute regarding the limits of excess coverage (Ruth Ann Wunderman-Cooper, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 15-56671, 9th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — Insureds have asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s ruling dismissing their lawsuit seeking coverage for 2015 property damage to their food manufacturing facility, alleging that if this case of first impression is not reversed, the lower court’s ruling will change 50 years of law and policy and strip Louisiana policyholders of their rights (Al Copeland Investments LLC, et al. v. First Specialty Insurance Corp., No. 17-30557, 5th Cir.)
CHICAGO — A plastics company and insurer recently submitted their arguments to the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether a trial court erred when it found that the insurer was not liable to provide coverage in relation to an underlying lawsuit stemming from faulty laminate made by the company (Berry Plastics Corp., n/k/a Berry Global Inc. v. Illinois National Insurance Co., No. 17-1815, 7th Cir.).
NEW YORK — In briefs filed with the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a life insurance provider and a bank that held a policy declared void ab initio by a trial court debate whether Delaware law was properly applied in a determination that the policy constituted an illegal stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI) policy and whether a refund of premiums was appropriate (U.S. Bank National Association v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, No. 17-0435, 2nd Cir.).
BALTIMORE — In an alleged life insurance fraud scheme that shifted debt to reinsurers, a class of plaintiffs on Nov. 21 asked a Maryland federal court to extend the relevant time period for discovery as to 11 class policies experiencing an 2015 cost of insurance (COI) increase (Richard Dickman, et al. v. Banner Life Insurance Co., No. 16-192, D. Md.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A family on Nov. 3 told a Delaware court that an umbrella policy should cover damages from an automobile accident even where an individual insured through the policy’s extension to household members had liability limits lower than those specified by the umbrella policy (Marie Saint Hilaire, et al. v. Martha Irene Gonzalez Lankford, et al., No. K16C-12-026 JJC, Del. Super.).
CHICAGO — An insurer filed an appeal in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals seeking to reverse a lower court’s denial of its renewed motion for judgment on the evidence after a jury returned an $87,000 verdict in favor of the insured on his breach of contract claim (David Thorne v. Member Select Insurance Co., No. 17-1377, 7th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insurer and a real estate broker recently submitted their arguments in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether an exclusion in the policy precludes coverage in relation to an underlying lawsuit in which class members allege that the broker and individual agents received secret profits while acting as their real estate agents (Hanover Insurance Co. v. Paul M. Zagaris Inc. et al., 17-15477, 9th Cir.).
CHICAGO — No coverage is owed for an underlying asbestos personal injury suit filed against an insured because the policies’ pollution exclusion and silica exclusion preclude coverage, the insurers assert in a Nov. 3 complaint filed in Illinois federal court (All America Insurance Co., et al. v. Banner Truck & Trailer Sales Inc., et al., No. 17-1214, S.D. Ill.).
NEW ORLEANS — An engineering and applied technology company is asking the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s ruling and find that an insurer has a duty to indemnify the engineering company with respect to a settlement of an underlying shareholder derivative action (Twin City Insurance Company v. Oceaneering International Incorporated, et al., No. 17-20303, 5th Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — Four Missouri farms have appealed a federal agency’s interpretation of their crop insurance policies that resulted in the denial of their claims for indemnity (Bottoms Farm Partnership, et al. v. Sonny Purdue, et al., No. 17-2164, 8th Cir.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A high-end wine collector has asked a California appeals court to reverse a lower court’s judgment in favor of an insurer in his lawsuit seeking coverage for an alleged multimillion-dollar loss to his wine collection due to fraud (David Doyle v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, No. G054197, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3).
SAN FRANCISCO — An Oregon federal judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of an insurer in a dispute over coverage for underlying carbon monoxide poisoning suits because the pollution exclusion in the policy at issue does not apply to carbon monoxide as it is not an irritant or contaminant, an insured argues in an Oct. 23 brief to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Colony Insurance Co. v. Victory Construction LLC, et al., No. 17-35357, 9th Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — A receiver and state guaranty associations ask in an Oct. 27 reply brief that the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals clarify that its intention was not to limit trust law remedies available to a trial court on remand in a dispute over the mishandling of funds belonging to insolvent funeral insurers (Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C., et al. v. J. Douglas Cassity, et al., Nos. 15-3872 & 15-3878, 8th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15621).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a breach of contract lawsuit, a financial services company argues in a Nov. 3 opposition brief to the District of Columbia federal court that it has a right to recover a $26 million arbitration award directly from reinsurers (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
CINCINNATI — Explaining the financial benefits of an agricultural cooperative to members, a farming cooperative argues in a Nov. 6 reply 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.).