FRESNO, Calif. — A disability insurer acted in bad faith and breached its contract in terminating a claimant’s long-term disability (LTD) benefits because the insurer’s termination was not reasonable and not based on reliable medical evidence, the claimant alleges in an Oct. 15 complaint filed in California federal court (Jennifer Sims v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 19-1460, E.D. Calif.).
ATLANTA — Appellants on Oct. 2 asked a Georgia Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of a homeowners insurer in its lawsuit disputing coverage for an underlying shooting injury, arguing that whether the policy’s criminal acts exclusion applies to bar coverage is a question for the jury (Vernon Marcus, et al. v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., No. A20A0391, Ga. App.).
AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Supreme Court should grant review of an appeals court’s ruling that an insurer owes no duty to defend an insured against underlying allegations arising out of the insured’s aerial spraying of a herbicide based on an endorsement to the policy’s pollution exclusion because the underlying suit alleges damages that are potentially covered under the policy at issue, the insured argues in an Oct. 11 petition for review (RiceTec Inc. v. StarNet Insurance Co., No. 19-0927, Texas Sup.).
NEW YORK — Following an acquittal in a related criminal case, an investment company’s former executive argues in an Oct. 10 reply brief to a New York federal court that there exists no finding that he engaged in any wrongdoing and, therefore, a runoff insurer is obligated to advance his legal fees and costs and make immediate advancement payment to him of $708,784.77 (In re: Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, David Levy v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-3211, S.D. N.Y.).
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal should affirm a district court’s ruling that an insurer owes no coverage for environmental contamination claims asserted by neighbors of an insured property because the insured failed to provide timely notice of the claims, the insurer argues in an Oct. 3 appellee brief (Carmine Greene, et al. v. Kenneth Will, et al., No. 19-2260, 7th Cir.).
ATLANTA — A car dealership and reinsurer argue in a Sept. 16 brief to the Georgia Court of Appeals that there is no reason to vacate a $462,971 arbitration award for manifest disregard of law while a vehicle service contracts administrator says in its response brief filed the same day that there is no basis for an attorney fees award (Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al. v. Interstate National Dealer Services Inc., No. A20A0036, Interstate National Dealer Services Inc. v. Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al., No. A20A0037, Ga. App.).
MIAMI — Insureds on Sept. 12 sued their insurer in a Florida court, alleging that it breached an insurance policy when it denied their claim seeking coverage for damage caused by Hurricane Irma (Avrohom Liberman, et al. v. Heritage Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 95590062, Fla. Cir.)
LOGAN, Utah — With primary briefing complete and scheduled Oct. 22 oral arguments approaching, the parties in an insurance coverage dispute over punitive damages for a carbon monoxide poisoning incident submitted supplemental briefs at the direction of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals addressing the diversity of the parties and suggesting that a party that has known issues on appeal be dismissed from the case (Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., et al. v. Apartment Management Consultants LLC, et al., No. 18-8058, 10th Cir.).
BOSTON — The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral argument on Oct. 8 in an insurance dispute in which plaintiffs contend that their insurer “mistreated” them by failing to address their claim and then providing false information regarding the payment of the claim “in deliberate bad faith” (River Farm Realty Trust, et al. v. Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company, No. 19-1188, 1st Cir.).
SEATTLE — In a recently filed reply brief, insureds ask the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling in favor of insurers in a coverage dispute over an underlying $3.5 million arbitration award arising from property damage that occurred on 11,000 acres of forest lands (Campbell Global LLC, et al. v. American States Insurance Company, et al., No. 18-35337, 9th Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — An insurer on Sept. 9 asked the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a federal court’s ruling that it has a duty to defend two construction defect actions, disputing the finding that there are sufficient allegations of products-related tort claims such that there may have been an “occurrence” (Nautilus Insurance Company v. 200 Christian Street Partners LLC, et al., Nos. 19-1507 and 19-1506, 3rd Cir.).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — An appellee recently asked a Florida appeals court to affirm a lower court’s finding that an insurer is liable for attorney fees that were incurred by its insured in a lawsuit arising from a car accident, calling “meritless” all of the insurer’s arguments on appeal as to why her proposal for settlement was not enforceable (Nationwide Insurance Company of America v. Jessica Muro, Nos. 4D18-2824 and 4D18-0907, Fla. App., 4th Dist.).
JASPER, Ala. — In response to an insurer’s motion to dismiss, a woman argues on Oct. 3 that an Alabama federal court should deny the motion and exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over her lawsuit against the city of Jasper and its employees over sexual misconduct in a jail allegations as well as her claim as judgment creditor as an assignee of the insurer’s rights under reinsurance agreements (Whitley Goodson v. J.C. Poe Jr., et al., No. 19-1399, N.D. Ala.).
DENVER — Parties in an insurance breach of contract and insurance bad faith lawsuit stemming from an automobile insurance dispute recently asked a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel to determine whether a federal district court erred in issuing rulings on certain jury instructions relating to her claims and in prohibiting a claimant from submitting evidence from an underlying arbitration proceeding (Luzetta Murphy-Sims v. Owners Insurance Co., No. 18-1392, 10th Cir.).
BOSTON — An insured in an Oct. 1 motion opposes an insurer’s motion to dismiss its bad faith lawsuit alleging that the insurer has made no payment on almost half of its 228 claims for a total of $39.6 million in damage caused by Hurricane Maria, arguing that the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction “is an exercise in misdirection away from” its contacts with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Capital Crossing Servicing Company LLC v. MAPFRE Praico Insurance Company, No. 19-11157, D. Mass.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Shareholders and officers of an insolvent insurer “disguise” their first amended complaint as one for civil conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights but are actually attempting to “collaterally attack” the insurer’s liquidation proceedings, the Puerto Rico insurance commissioner and others argue in an Oct 1. motion to dismiss in Puerto Rico federal court (Victor J. Salgado and Associates Inc., et al. v. Javier Rivera-Rios, et al., No. 19-1663, D. Puerto Rico).
NEW YORK — A runoff insurer in a Sept. 23 opposition asks a New York federal court not to dismiss its third-party complaint against a defendant for aiding and abetting a Ponzi-like scheme in which fraudulent misrepresentations were made to gain investment control and discretion over $320 million of the runoff insurer’s reserves because the defendant “attempts to minimize his role” in the scheme and “makes a concerted effort to dispute the factual allegations against him” (In re Platinum-Beechwood litigation, No. 18-6658; Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658; Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, Melanie L. Cyganowski v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., and Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. PB Investment Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
JASPER, Ala. — In a woman’s lawsuit against a city and its employees over sexual misconduct allegations in a jail, the city’s insurer on Sept. 19 seeks dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of a claim that the woman is a judgment creditor as an assignee of the insurer’s rights under reinsurance agreements (Whitley Goodson v. J.C. Poe Jr., et al., No. 19-1399, N.D. Ala.).
UTICA, N.Y. — A reinsurer on Sept. 27 filed several motions for judgment as a matter of law on an insurer’s claim for breach of a 1973 certificate and the insurer’s other contract claims and affirmative defenses in their New York federal court dispute over coverage for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
AUSTIN, Texas — A reinsurer, as a debtor, argues to a Texas federal bankruptcy court in a Sept. 23 reply brief that a medical malpractice insurer has failed to cooperate with resolution of its guaranty claim and, thus, the court should grant the reinsurer’s motion for an estimation of that claim (In re: Capson Corp., et al., Nos. 19-10890, 19-10893 & 19-10894, W.D. Texas Bkcy.).