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.).
NEW ORLEANS — An insured asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to find that an insurer’s duty to defend it against an underlying lawsuit was triggered under an insurance policy’s trade dress, slogan and advertising idea coverage (Laney Chiropractic and Sports Therapy, P.A. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 16-11183, 5th Cir.).
CINCINNATI — Target Corp. filed a brief in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 15, arguing that the indemnity obligation owed by its insured to another company that was sued in an underlying personal injury lawsuit is enforceable “as a matter of law in a final and conclusive manner” (Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Target Corporation, et al., No. 16-2222, 6th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 17 will hear oral arguments regarding whether a Nevada federal court correctly abstained from an insurer’s suit in favor a lawsuit filed in Nevada state court by a third party against the insurer (Seneca Insurance Co. Inc. v. Strange Land Inc., et al., No. 15-16011, 9th Cir.).
ATLANTA — An insured argues in a March 1 reply brief filed in the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of an insurer in a copyright infringement coverage suit because the district court did not review all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the insured (Highlands Holdings Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., No. 16-14981, 11th Cir.).
BOSTON — A disability claimant who successfully recovered benefits from a disability insurer argues in a Feb. 27 reply brief filed in the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a district court failed to promote the goal of making the claimant whole under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it limited the amount of prejudgment interest and reduced the amount of attorney fees the claimant could collect from the insurer (Diahann L. Gross v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Nos. 16-2002, 16-1958, 1st Cir.).
RICHMOND, Va. — A woman who contends that her insurer breached its contract when it refused to pay benefits pursuant to her underinsured motorist coverage policy filed a brief in the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing that a district court “improperly” resolved a factual dispute and “invaded the province of the jury” when it found that she could not establish damages as a proximate result of the insurer’s conduct (Casey Jordan v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 16-2049, 4th Cir.).
ATLANTA — Parties in an insurance bad faith lawsuit recently asked the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to determine whether a federal district court erred in finding that an insurer acted in bad faith by not accepting the terms of claimants’ time-limited demand letter seeking the policy limits under its insured’s automobile insurance policy in exchange for a limited release of claims against the insured (Jesus Camacho, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., No. 16-14225, 11th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A life insurance salesman has asked the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn summary judgment for Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and to allow a trial on the plaintiff’s claims of violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2012, 18 U.S.C. §1514SA (Ronald Kantin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, No. 16-1091, 2nd Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — An insurer and a container company recently submitted supplemental arguments before the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether there was any coverage for damage to a shipment of corn syrup under an insurance policy (The Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. USA Container Co., Inc., No. 14-3685, 3rd Cir.).
CHICAGO — An insurer and parties involved in the construction of a condominium argued recently in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals over what if anything stemming from a construction defect suit is covered by a commercial general liability policy (Westfield Insurance Co. v. National Decorating Service, Inc., et al., No. 16-1439, 7th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A commercial general liability insurer recently argued to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that there is no controlling case law supporting a lower court’s conclusion that an “Employers Liability Exclusion” is ambiguous as a matter of law (Hastings Development v. Evanston Insurance Co., Nos. 15-3816 and 14-4085, 2nd Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 9 received a reply brief in a case involving the scope of duty an excess insurer owes to an additional insured employee who used her vehicle for work purposes and was involved in an accident with a motorcycle, resulting in a $150,000 coverage gap (Judy Bamberger v. National Union Fire Insurance Co., No. 16-55252, 9th Cir.).
ATLANTA — An attorney and an insurance company recently argued in the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals over whether the attorney received proper notice that a lower court was considering bringing sanctions against him (Kevin C. Ambler v. Landmark American Insurance Company, No. 16-11750, 11th Cir.).
CINCINNATI — A group of insurers and an industrial company sparred recently in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals over the ambiguous or unambiguous meaning of a 1989 settlement agreement regarding environmental cleanup (Employers Insurance of Wausau, et al. v. McGraw Edison Company, No. 16-1264, 6th Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — The correct application of the law and the doctrine of waiver do not support a lower federal court’s ruling that a food marketing and distribution company insured’s notice of an underlying lawsuit brought by its former employee was untimely, the insured argued to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Food Market Merchandising Inc. v. Scottsdale Indemnity Co., 16-3427, 8th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — Insureds recently asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that a commercial general liability insurer has no duty to defend them against underlying copyright claims brought by an adult entertainment company, arguing that the underlying complaint triggered the insurer’s duty to defend by stating a claim for “advertising injury” (St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Giganews Inc., et al., 16-50914, 5th Cir.).
TALLAHASEE, Fla. — Parties in an insurance dispute recently asked the Florida Supreme Court to determine whether a Florida appeals court erred in affirming a trial court’s ruling that an insurer was liable for attorney fees as “costs” under certain policy provisions (Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Macedo, et al., No. SC16-935, Fla. Sup.).
RICHMOND, Va. — A company that filed a malpractice lawsuit against a law firm filed a brief on Nov. 21 in the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, contending that “under the plain language” of an insurance policy $10 million in coverage is available for the litigation (Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company v. Protostorm LLC, et al., Nos. 16-1835, 16-1853, 16-1866, 4th Cir.).
CINCINNATI — Parties in an insurance dispute asked the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently to determine whether a federal district court erred in determining that an insurance broker’s agent had no duty to advise an insured of an exclusion added to a policy renewal that was not part of the previous policy (Atic Enterprises Inc. v. Cottingham & Butler Insurance Services Inc., No. 16-6549, 6th Cir.).