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.).
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.).
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.).
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.).
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.).
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 — Having been rescinded, a commercial general liability insurance policy did not provide coverage for lead paint claims as a judgment creditor was not an intended beneficiary of the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.).
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.).
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.).
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.).
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.).
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).
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.).
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.).
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.).
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.).
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.).
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.).
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.).
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.).
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.).