CHICAGO — An insurer attempting to prove general jurisdiction must make a prima facie showing under Illinois law and must satisfy federal due process, and it failed to do both, the owner of a Michigan collapsed warehouse claims in its reply brief filed April 26 in the Illinois Supreme Court (Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Interstate Warehousing, Inc., No. 121281, Ill. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A company that was the victim of fraud by way of email has asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s decision and find that an insurer must provide coverage under the terms of a policy regarding losses by computer fraud (Aqua Star [USA] Corp. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, No. 16-35614, 9th Cir.).
FRANKFORT, Ky. — An insurer has asked the Kentucky Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s finding that its request for an examination under oath (EUO) was inappropriate because it defeated the purpose of Kentucky’s Motor Vehicle Reparations Act (MVRA) (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Roniesha Adams, f/k/a Roniesha Sanders, No. 2015-SC-000366-D, Ky. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insured has asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that coverage for an underlying qui tam action brought against it under the False Claims Act (FCA) is barred because the claims arose out of its professional services (HotChalk Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., No. 16-17287, 9th Cir.).
ATLANTA — An Alabama federal judge erred in finding that coverage is provided for two underlying lawsuits alleging injuries from sewage exposure because a total pollution exclusion is not limited to traditional industrial or environmental pollution and bars coverage, an insurer argues in its June 8 reply brief filed in the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Evanston Insurance Co. v. J&J Cable Construction LLC, et al., No. 17-11188, 11th Cir.).
NEW YORK — An insurer alleges in a June 14 complaint that rescission of a contamination products insurance policy is warranted because the insured, seeking coverage for a recall of frozen peas, failed to disclose that Listeria was discovered in its production facility prior to the issuance of the policy (Berkley Assurance Co. v. National Frozen Foods Corp., No. 17-4486, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A Brazilian reinsurer on June 14 argued that a New York federal court should deny an insurer’s request for $5 million under an arbitration award in order to pay a settlement it reached with a steelmaker because the settlement does not require reinsurance coverage (National Indemnity Co. v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., No. 15-3975, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — Three reinsurance executives on June 15 requested that a New York federal court send a $50 million Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act case against them to arbitration, arguing that the arbitration clause in the reinsurance agreement applies to them as well as their company (Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Co. and Washington National Life Insurance Co. v. Moshe M. Feuer, et al., No. 16-7646, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW ORLEANS — A widow who seeks death benefits from an insurance company recently filed a brief in the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals contending that a district court erred when it granted the insurer summary judgment on her breach of contract claim (Gloria Wells v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company, No. 16-20831, 5th Cir.).
MORRISTOWN, N.J. — An insurer claims in a June 2 complaint filed in New Jersey state court that it is entitled to equitable contribution from another insurer because the other insurer improperly denied coverage to its insured for three construction defects lawsuits filed against the insured (Zurich American Insurance Co., as successor by merger to Assurance Company of America, et al. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Co., et al., No. L-1233-17, N.J. Super., Morris Co.).
CINCINNATI — Whether a shopping mall developer should pay damages on an insurer’s counterclaims that the developer’s breach of its lease with a sporting goods retailer caused the retailer’s merchandise to be ruined when a roof failed in a rainstorm was debated recently by the developer and the insurer in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Developers Diversified of Tennessee, Inc. v. Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co., 16-6615, 6th Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — Insureds have asked the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling that granted an insurer’s motion to compel arbitration in their breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit arising from Superstorm Sandy damage, arguing that New Jersey law applies (Fin Associates, et al. v. Hudson Specialty Ins. Co., 16-3541, 3rd Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A company that contends that a federal judge in Montana wrongly dismissed its case against an insurance company recently filed an appeal brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing that the judge erred in determining that interrelated claims constituted a legal issue rather than a factual one (Sauerbier Ranches Inc., et al. v. Catlin Specialty Insurance Company, No. 16-35280, 9th Cir.).
SEATTLE — An insured condominium complex is owed coverage for hidden damages caused by water intrusion discovered at a number of its condominium buildings, the insured claims in a May 26 complaint filed in Washington federal court (Milestone Condominium Association v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., et al., No. 17-832, W.D. Wash.).
PHILADELPHIA — An insurer and transportation-related companies recently submitted their arguments before the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals as to whether the insurer was entitled to damages for the theft of a shipment of stolen pharmaceuticals under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act (ICSA) (AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance v. Great American Lines et al., 16-3668, 3rd Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — In a breach of contract dispute, a reinsurer in a June 1 motion asks a Pennsylvania federal court to compel an insurer to produce all documents it redacted or withheld concerning “reserves,” “reinsurance,” “other reinsurance” and “proprietary” information (R&Q Reinsurance Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., No. 16-cv-01473, E.D. Pa.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals incorrectly determined that a negligence claim is completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act because the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis for complete preemption, a disability claimant says in a May 22 petition for writ of certiorari filed in the high court (Samantha Milby v. MCMC LLC, No. 16-1409, U.S. Sup., 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1860).
SEATTLE — An insurer owes coverage for hidden damages caused by water intrusion to insured condominiums because the damages occurred during the applicable policy periods and no policy exclusions bar coverage, an insured claims in a May 26 complaint filed in Washington federal court (Edmonds Seacrest Homeowners Association v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 17-833, W.D. Wash.).
DENVER — A plaintiff company has told the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a federal judge in Colorado erred in entering summary judgment in favor of its insurer, contending that an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is a claim under its directors and officers liability policy that warrants coverage for $3 million in legal fees (MusclePharm Corporation v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., No. 16-1462, 10th Cir.).
NEW YORK — An insured’s assignees have asked the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s ruling in a coverage dispute arising from alleged breaches of contractual obligations under two promissory notes and a consulting agreement by the insured and its directors and officers (Intelligent Digital Systems v. Beazley Insurance Company, Inc., No. 16-3548, 2nd Cir.).