AUSTIN, Texas — Texas law should permit courts to look outside the pleadings when determining whether there existed a duty to defend an insured who concedes that she committed fraud, an insurance company tells the Texas Supreme Court in a Sept. 4 opening brief (Loya Insurance Co. v. Osbaldo Hurtado Avalos, et al., No. 18-0837, Texas Sup.).
UTICA, N.Y. — After a $6.25 million judgment was entered against it in a dispute concerning two separate reinsurance certificates and coverage for settlements of asbestos claims, a reinsurer asks on Oct. 18 that a New York federal court grant judgment as a matter of law on an insurer’s breach of contract claims and affirmative defenses and, in the alternative, grant a new trial on the insurer’s breach of contract claims and the reinsurer’s claim for breach of the duty of utmost good faith (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
TAMPA, Fla. — An insurer on Oct. 18 filed a notice of removal in a Florida federal court of an insured’s breach of contract lawsuit over Hurricane Irma damage (Dana Cuculici v. Lexington Insurance Company, No. 19-02575, M.D. Fla.).
TACOMA, Wash. — A couple tells a Washington appeals panel in a June 4 brief that a trial court judge erred when awarding summary judgment to their title insurance company on its argument that it had no duty to defend them in a quiet title suit brought by their neighbors, arguing that the duty to defend was triggered under the “eight corners” rule (Neil Rabinowitz, et al. v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., et al., No. 52898-3-II, Wash. App., 2nd Div.).
ST. LOUIS — Two banks argue in a Sept. 24 reply brief that insolvent funeral insurers’ receiver and state insurance guaranty associations offer “no cogent reasons for why it would be unjust” for a Missouri federal court to correct a prejudgment interest amount in a $102,135,293.07 judgment rendered in a dispute regarding allegations over the mishandling of the insurers’ funds (Jo Ann Howard & Associates P.C., et al. v. J. Douglas Cassity, et al., No. 09-01252, E.D. Mo.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — Trucking companies sued the administrators of their self-insured employee benefit plans on Oct. 18 in a California federal court, alleging that the administrators negligently failed to obtain reinsurance coverage for the plans (A&I Transport, Inc., et al. v. KG Administrative Services, Inc., et al., No. 19-1992, C.D. Calif.).
ATLANTA — Parties in an insurance bad faith lawsuit recently asked an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel to determine whether a federal district court erred in granting an insurer’s summary judgment motion after determining that no genuine issue of material fact existed showing that the insurer acted in bad faith in its handling of an automobile insurance claim with a third party (Scott Martin v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Co., No. 19-11164, 11th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A debtor in a Sept. 27 memorandum of law requests that a New York federal bankruptcy court recognize a run-off insurer’s administration proceeding as a foreign main proceeding to stay U.S. creditors from pursuing actions against the insurer and to ensure administration of its affairs (In re: Stronghold Insurance Company Ltd., Chapter 15, No. 19-13096, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
NEW ORLEANS — An insured argues in an Oct. 1 appellant brief that an underlying lawsuit seeking to recover damages purportedly caused by a data breach of its credit card processing system triggered “personal and advertising injury” coverage under its commercial general liability insurance policy, asking the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that the insurer has no duty to defend (Landry's Inc. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, No. 19-20430, 5th Cir.).
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — No coverage is owed for underlying claims filed against an insured following a gas pipeline explosion because the policies’ professional liability exclusions and pollution exclusions bar coverage for the underlying claims, two insurers assert in a complaint filed Oct. 10 in Alabama federal court (Ohio Security Insurance Co., et al. v. Superior Land Designs, et al., No. 19-1656, N.D. Ala.).
PHILADELPHIA — Parties in an insurance bad faith lawsuit recently asked a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel to determine whether a federal district court erred in holding that an insurer cannot be held liable for acting in bad faith in refusing to defend a noninsured who was driving an insured vehicle at the time of an accident because the noninsured lacked standing to bring claims against the insurer (Louis Myers v. GEICO Casualty Co., No. 19-1108, 3rd Cir.).
TACOMA, Wash. — A Washington federal bankruptcy judge did not have jurisdiction to approve two settlements between Chapter 11 debtor Fraser’s Boiler Service Inc. and several asbestos liability insurers, nonsettling insurers argue in their Sept. 30 final brief on appeal in federal court (Fraser’s Boiler Service, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, et al, No. 19-35269, 9th Cir.).
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.).