NEW YORK — Various summary judgment motions, including one from a receiver of a hedge fund on the issue of agency and imputation and one from an insurer in rehabilitation concerning a fraudulent conveyance claim, were filed Feb. 14 in a New York federal court in a case over misuse and mismanagement in a hedge fund scheme (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.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A professional liability insurer on Feb. 11 filed an opposition to a petition for writ of certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ finding that underlying alleged conduct “falls clearly outside” of a professional liability insurance policy's definition of “professional services” (Mark Chapman, et al. v. ACE American Insurance Co., No. 19-689, U.S. Sup.).
LOS ANGELES — An insured on Jan 24 indicated that he was filing an appeal in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to challenge a lower federal court’s ruling that events involving him and his former companion that occurred Aug. 10, 2014, were not an “accident” to trigger coverage under his homeowners and umbrella insurance policies (David Black v. State Farm General Insurance Company, et al., No. 19-04163, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227226).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — The third-party administrators for a self-insured employee benefit plan in a Feb. 13 answer in a California federal case deny trucking companies’ allegations that they negligently failed to obtain reinsurance coverage for the plans and assert affirmative defenses (A&I Transport, Inc., et al. v. KG Administrative Services, Inc., et al., No. 19-1992, C.D. Calif.).
DOVER, Del. — Payment reductions in cases where a spinal surgery provider performs multiple injections in one procedure properly account for the fact that providers do not repeat some preoperative and post-operative care when two or more injections occur, an insurer tells the Delaware Supreme Court in a Jan 17 opening brief (Spine Care Delaware LLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., et al., No. 469,2019, Del. Sup.).
RICHMOND, Va. — A panel of the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments on March 17 in a case in which a family farm and its insurer dispute the coverage owed for a fire that destroyed a building the farm owned. At issue is whether the building was technically vacant at the time of the fire based on the policy language (Bierman Family Farm LLC, et al. v. United Farm Family Insurance Company, Nos. 18-2240, 18-2279, 4th Cir.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — An appellant recently asked a California appeals court to reverse a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a general liability insurer in his direct action lawsuit asserting that the insurer wrongfully denied coverage for property damage caused by a retaining wall that was constructed by the insured, arguing that, at minimum, there are triable issues of material fact regarding whether his losses are covered under the policies (Thomas Guastello v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., No. G057714, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3).
SAN FRANCISCO — A commercial landlord insured recently asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling that coverage is barred for actors’ underlying lawsuit alleging that they contracted the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the course of filming sexual activity at the insured’s premises, arguing that commercial tenants are absent from the list of persons whose conduct causing sexual acts are excluded under the policy (Atain Specialty Insurance Company Inc. v. Armory Studios LLC, et al., Nos. 19-15745 and 19-15820, 9th Cir.).
ATLANTA — The Georgia Court of Appeals should reverse a trial court’s ruling in favor of a homeowners insurer because the insured never received a policy booklet that included a jewelry exclusion used by the insurer to limit the insured’s recovery following a home burglary, the insured argues in a Jan. 13 appellant brief (Ethel L. Munson v. The Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co., No. A20A0906, Ga. App.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A liquidator for an insolvent insurer argues in a Feb. 6 omnibus reply brief to reinsurers that a Puerto Rico federal judge should alter a decision sending a $150 million hurricane loss case to arbitration because the dispute over assets owed under reinsurance agreements must begin in the liquidation court (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
OKLAHOMA CITY — A reinsurer in Feb. 5 motion asks an Oklahoma federal court for entry of a default against a telecommunications company and one of the company’s employees in a declaratory judgment action concerning coverage for an underlying personal injury lawsuit arising out of a vehicular collision because the parties failed to respond to the summons (Star Insurance Co. v. K&J Telecommunications, LLC, et al., No. 19-960, W.D. Okla.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A federal flood insurer recently replied to a pro se insured’s opposition argument that called its motion to dismiss a Superstorm Sandy coverage dispute “moot,” contending that the policies “plainly contradict and refute any right to relief” asserted by the insured (Mohammed Keita v. American Security Insurance Company, et al., No. 17-00879, E.D. N.Y.).
LOS ANGELES — An insured sued its homeowners insurer and its affiliate for breach of contract, bad faith and unfair business practices in a California court on Jan. 17, alleging that they “devised a scheme and plan” that relinquished adjustment of his wildfire claim to “Hired Consultants” who denied or lowballed the claim under the defendants’ “directive, consent and approval” (Kambiz Aramnia v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, et al., No. 20VECV00077, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.).
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Florida insureds filed suit in a federal court on Jan. 27, alleging that their Write-Your-Own insurer committed breach of contract by not paying for certain losses they incurred “as a direct result of a peril” that is covered under their Standard Flood Insurance Policy and seeking attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Jason Dean, et al. v. American Strategic Insurance Corp., No. 20-00068, M.D. Fla.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A builders risk insurer recently asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that a faulty workmanship exclusion does not preclude coverage for an insured’s repair costs, arguing that the claimed loss was caused solely by the insured’s and its subcontractor’s faulty workmanship and construction (Engineered Structures, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company, No. 18-35588, 9th Cir.).
BOSTON — A woman severely injured in an alcohol-involved vehicle crash on Oct. 1, 2019, asked the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to rule that a district court erred by not recognizing insurance claims a nightclub assigned to her and by not trebling the value of her claim claims under the state’s consumer protection law (Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation v. Kailee M. Higgins, et al., No. 19-1496, 1st Cir.).
NEW YORK — Whether a deaf woman’s case alleged intentional discrimination outside insurable limits or unintentional discrimination will come before the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 3 (Brooklyn Center for Psychotherapy Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., No. 19-2266, 2nd Cir.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Reinsurers in Jan. 21 opposition briefs argue that a Puerto Rico federal judge should deny an insolvent insurer’s liquidator motion to alter a decision sending a $150 million hurricane loss case to arbitration because there was no manifest error with the ruling (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — An insurer breached its contract and acted in bad faith by refusing to defend and indemnify two additional insureds named as defendants in a personal injury suit stemming from an electric shock that occurred while an employee was setting up amusement rides at a fair, the insurer of the additional insureds claims in a Jan. 17 complaint filed in Tennessee federal court (Liberty Corporate Capital Ltd. v. Ace American Insurance Co., No. 20-2038, W.D. Tenn.).
DENVER — For an appeal in a dispute alleging a reinsurance scheme, life insurers and investment companies argue in separate Jan. 21 appellee briefs that the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should affirm a ruling dismissing an investor’s claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act because that claim is reverse-preempted under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (Albert Ogles v. Guggenheim Investments, et al., No. 19-3154, 10th Cir.).