PHILADELPHIA — In a breach of contract suit, an insurer moved for clarification on Aug. 11 with a Pennsylvania federal court to confirm that it is to produce only unredacted versions of documents previously produced with redactions based on proprietary material, reserves and “other reinsurance” information and additional documents reflecting the date when the insurer provided first notice of asbestos claims to other reinsurers of relevant policies (R&Q Reinsurance Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., No. 16-1473, E.D. Pa.).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Replying to an insurer’s answering brief of its initial appeal, an insured on Aug. 1 reiterated to the Florida Supreme Court that a Florida appellate court erred in reversing a state trial court’s denial of the insurer’s motion for a directed verdict in an insurance bad faith lawsuit (James M. Harvey v. GEICO General Insurance Co., No. SC17-85, Fla. Sup.).
MIAMI — An insured’s suit seeking a declaration that coverage is owed for water damage to his home was removed to Florida federal court on Aug. 14 by the insurer on the basis that the amount in controversy satisfies the federal jurisdictional amount in controversy (Romeo Alcantara v. American Security Insurance Co., No. 17-23077, S.D. Fla.).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A nonprofit public insurer argues to an Alabama federal court in an Aug. 9 brief that it did not waive its right to arbitrate its $1.3 million lawsuit under a reinsurance agreement and that a reinsurer will not be prejudiced in sending the dispute to arbitration (Alabama Municipal Insurance Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., No. 16-cv-00948, M.D. Ala.).
NEW ORLEANS — An insurer is asking the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a district court’s judgment of law that was against a jury verdict in an insurance dispute, contending that the district court committed error because “substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding” that the insured breached the insurance policy’s cooperation condition by not providing records of its financial performance, relevant to arson that damaged the insured’s restaurant (Resie’s Chicken & Waffles Restaurant, et al. v. Acceptance Indemnity Company, et al., No. 16-20680, 5th Cir.).
LAS VEGAS — An appellant has asked the Nevada Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s finding that an insurer that issued a Motor Vehicles Dealer’s License Bond to an automobile dealership can recover the attorney fees that it incurred in defending an underlying claim against the bond (Zabeti vs. Great American Ins. Co., No. 70461, Nev. Sup.).
HELENA, Mont. — A law firm insured and one of its attorneys have asked the Montana Supreme Court to find that a lower court erred in rescinding a professional liability insurance policy and declaring it void ab initio as to innocent insureds and innocent victims due to another insured’s failure to disclose that he stole client money (ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. McLean & McLean, PLLP, et al., No. DA 16-0739, Mont. Sup.).
AUSTIN, Texas — State Farm Lloyds told the Texas Supreme Court in a brief filed Feb. 21 that a trial court judge’s ruling awarding extracontractual damages to a couple after a jury found that they breached the terms of an insurance policy should be reversed because it is inconsistent with existing precedent (State Farm Lloyds v. Candelario Fuentes, et al., No. 16-0369, Texas Sup.).
NEW YORK— Several insurers recently submitted briefs to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether numerous underlying lawsuits filed against a hospital in relation to alleged sexual abuse committed by one of its former medical employees implicated coverage under a Hospital Professional Liability (HPL) policy (Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. St. Francis Care Inc., et al., 16-2747, 2nd Cir.).
ATLANTA — Parties in an underlying real estate fraud dispute recently asked the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling that commercial general liability insurers are not liable for any amount of a $40 million consent judgment entered against the insured (Attorney’s Title Insurance Fund, et al. v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, et al., No. 16-15386, 11th Cir.).
DENVER — Two attorneys who were retained to represent a homeowners association in an insurance coverage dispute argue that the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse a lower court’s sanctions ruling against them pertaining to their relationship with the insurance appraiser who worked on the homeowners association claim because the award is “erroneous” (Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Summit Park Townhome Association, No. 16-1348, 10th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A steel maker argues in its July 21 reply brief to a New York federal court that its settlement agreement with an insurer triggered a reinsurer’s indemnity obligations under an arbitration award because it liquidated the steel maker’s claim (National Indemnity Co. v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., No. 15-3975, S.D. N.Y.).
PITTSBURGH — In a mortgage insurance reinsurance scheme case, mortgagors and a reinsurer argue in a July 12 motion that they are entitled to judgment on a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) claim under current Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals law (Linda Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., No. 12-00058, W.D. Pa., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86380).
SALEM, Ore. — An insurer is not exempt from liability under Oregon state law for civil financial elder abuse, individuals who have purchased long-term care insurance policies from Bankers Life and Casualty Co. claim in a May 10 opening brief filed in the Oregon Supreme Court (Lorraine Bates, et al. v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, et al., No. CA S064742, Ore. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insured has asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling in favor of an aviation insurer in a coverage dispute arising from damage to one of the insured’s tanker aircrafts (Minden Air Corporation v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co., 16-15712, 9th Cir.).
LAKELAND, Fla. — An insurer argues in a May 30 brief filed in the Second District Florida Court of Appeal that a trial court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment claim in a water damage coverage dispute was not in error because the trial court properly found that the insureds did not state a cause of action for declaratory relief (Samuel Rivera et al. v. Homeowners Choice Property and Casualty Insurance Co. Inc., No. 2D16-4567, Fla. App., 2nd Dist., 2017 FL App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2144).
LOS ANGELES — In a June 27 petition for review filed in the California Supreme Court, an excess insurer says the high court should accept review of a silica coverage suit because the appellate court failed to address what constitutes proper exhaustion of the primary insurance policy at issue (Truck Insurance Exchange v. Moldex Metric Inc., et al., No. S242845, Calif. Sup., 2017 CA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1064).
CHICAGO — A banking institution and an insurer that sold it a bankers professional liability (BPL) policy recently submitted their arguments before the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals over whether defense costs and a settlement reached in an underlying lawsuit were excluded under the policy (BancorpSouth Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 17-1425, 7th Cir.).
DETROIT — An insured’s alleged misrepresentation of the value of property that was stolen did not warrant an insurance company’s rescission of the policy, a company tells the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in seeking reversal of a federal judge in Michigan’s decision to award summary judgment to ACE American Insurance Co (AMI Stamping LLC v. ACE American Insurance Company, et al., No. 16-2341, 6th Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania federal jury erred when it returned a verdict in favor of an insured after the stone facade on her home collapsed because the main cause of the collapse is excluded under the homeowners policy, the insurer argues in an appellant brief filed Feb. 23 in the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Ahsaki Gordon, et al. v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 16-3671, 3rd Cir.).