ATLANTA — A reinsurer argues in a March 26 reply brief that the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over insurers’ appeal of a “non-final” order to arbitrate their dispute for alleged bad faith refusal to pay their reinsurance claim regarding a construction defects case settlement (Builders Insurance, et al. v. Fletcher Reinsurance Co., No. 20-10969, 11th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A hedge fund investor argues in his March 16 reply brief that the liquidators of two hedge funds failed to meet their burden “by clear and convincing evidence” of proving claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting regarding the investor’s alleged role in a hedge fund collapse (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
PHILADELPHIA — An insurer recently asked the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a district court ruling that found that it had a duty to defend its insured in an underlying lawsuit. The insurer maintains that the underlying complaint contained no factual allegations of negligence and there was no occurrence (Westminster American Insurance Company v. Spruce 1530 LLC, No. 19-2207, 3rd Cir.).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — An insurer on March 14 filed suit in a federal court in California seeking a declaration that its policy’s “invasion of privacy” exclusion bars directors, officers and organization liability insurance coverage for an underlying putative class action alleging that the insured violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and state law (Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. HOSOPO Corporation, No. 20-00545, C.D. Calif.).
CHICAGO — A group of restaurant and movie theater owners and operators claim in a March 27 complaint filed in Illinois federal court that their insurer breached its contracts and acted in bad faith in denying the insureds’ claims for business interruption losses sustained as a result of the state-ordered shutdown of nonessential businesses in Illinois in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic (Big Onion Tavern Group LLC et al., v. Society Insurance Inc., No. 20-2005, N.D. Ill.).
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — In a March 30 opposition brief, a reinsurer calls an insurer’s motion for reconsideration “a third bite at the apple” that “does not meet the extraordinarily high standard” for that motion and, as such, maintains that a New York federal judge should not reconsider whether testimony proved the value that the insurer placed on its insured’s agreement that the policies contained aggregate limits (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., No. 12-196, Munich Reinsurance America Inc. v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co., No. 13-743, N.D. N.Y.).
NAPA, Calif. — Owners, operators and managers of two Napa Valley, Calif., restaurants on March 25 sued their insurers in a California superior court, seeking a declaration that their insurance policy provides coverage for any current and future civil authority closures of Napa County restaurants because of physical loss or damage from the coronavirus and provides business income coverage in the event that coronavirus has caused a loss or damage at their restaurants (French Laundry Partners, LP, et al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, et al., Calif. Super., Napa Co.).
ADA, Okla. — The Chickasaw Nation Department of Commerce on March 24 sued its insurers in Oklahoma court, seeking a declaration that its insurance policies cover its losses and expenses that are related to the coronavirus pandemic and COVID-19 infection (Chickasaw Nation Department of Commerce v. Lexington Insurance Co., et al., No. 20-35, Okla. Dist., Pontotoc Co.).
LAKELAND, Fla. — An insured asks a Florida appeals court in a March 23 motion to rehear her dispute over attorney fees related to her sinkhole claim with the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA), substituting for an insolvent insurer, because the court misapprehended a 2016 decision by the Florida Supreme Court (Phylis Heid v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, No. 2D18-737, Fla. App., 2nd Dist.).
DENVER — An insurer recently filed an appeal brief in the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals contending that a district court erred when it ruled that the insurer’s claim for declaratory judgment in a coverage action pertaining to an underlying lawsuit is not ripe (Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association Inc., et al., No. 19-1233, 10th Cir.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — Three insurers and a merged company recently briefed the Delaware Supreme Court about whether a judgment awarding dissenting shareholders additional funds from the company’s merger constituted a securities action sufficient to activate its insurance policies (In re Solera Insurance Coverage Appeals, Nos. 413,2019, 418,2019, Del. Sup.).
DANBURY, Conn. — The owner of a Falcon 10 jet airplane in a March 11 complaint tells a Connecticut court that its insurer breached their contract, acted in bad faith and violated Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) when it denied coverage for the aircraft that was allegedly damaged after it was seized by the U.S. government in connection with a drug trafficking criminal investigation (Maule Group, LLC v. Great American Insurance Group, Conn. Super., Danbury).
BOSTON — An appellant who claims that a federal judge in Massachusetts erred when finding that his insurer was not required to pay a third-party claim for diminution in value (DIV) tells the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a March 5 brief that two insurance associations should not be allowed to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the insurance company because their arguments mirror those of the appellee (Jonathan Martins v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Co., 19-1878, 1st Cir.).
NEW YORK — The receiver of a hedge fund failed to offer evidence in support of fraudulent conveyance and unjust enrichment claims regarding the securing of three investment management agreements (IMAs), Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP) argues in an March 6 opposition brief to a New York federal court (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Melanie L. Cyganowski, et al. v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
MIAMI — Rather than dismiss a bad faith claim, co-trustees in a March 5 opposition ask a Florida federal court to abate that claim until a breach of contract claim is resolved in their lawsuit over a cost increase allegedly tied to captive reinsurance transactions that benefited an insurer’s corporate parent (Michael Foster, et al. v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co., No. 19-24969, S.D. Fla.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Office Depot Inc. recently asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling in favor of an insurer in its lawsuit seeking coverage for an underlying whistleblower complaint alleging that it improperly charged California government entities for office supplies (Office Depot Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company, No. 19-55819, 9th Cir.).
LYNCHBURG, Va. — A $3 million breach of contract case over alleged defects in a seminary is not covered, an insurer argues in a March 17 complaint in a Virginia federal court, because there is no property damage caused by an “occurrence” and several business risk exclusions apply (Builders Mutual Insurance Co. v. R. F. Howerton, Inc., No. 20-00010, W.D. Va.).
NEW ORLEANS — A French Quarter restaurant on March 16 sued its insurer, the state of Louisiana and the governor in a Louisiana court, seeking a declaration that its “all risk” insurance policy “extends coverage from direct physical loss and/or from a civil authority shut-down due to a global pandemic virus” and provides business income coverage if the coronavirus contaminates its restaurant (Cajun Conti LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al., No. 20-02558, La. Civ. Dist., Orleans Parish).
NEW YORK — Two financial advisers tell a New York federal court in a March 17 reply brief that Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP) failed to establish and discovery has not shown that an alleged fraud scheme overvaluing a reinsurer’s investments was aided and abetted by them (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Lincoln International LLC, et al., No. 19-07137, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — Questions remain on whether an insurer breached an agreement to provide workers’ compensation policies when it and other insurers refused to issue new policies “mere weeks into their commercial relationship” with a reinsurer, the reinsurer argues to a New York federal court in a March 13 brief in opposition to the insurer’s summary judgment motion (AmTrust North America Inc. v. Signify Insurance Ltd., et al., No 18-3779, S.D. N.Y.).