WASHINGTON, D.C. — In their March 8 reply brief, reinsurers raise failure to state a claim and timeliness as reasons that a District of Columbia federal judge should dismiss or arbitrate a financial service company’s amended complaint concerning their breach of an implied-in-fact contract dispute over a $26 million arbitration award (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — In its surreply, an insurer asks in an April 12 surreply that a Puerto Rico federal judge reject a reinsurer’s motion to dismiss or compel arbitration of the insurer’s lawsuit regarding hurricane losses, citing its potential rehabilitation proceedings (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
TAMPA, Fla. — In separate April 11 reply briefs in a breach of contract dispute in Florida federal court, a Florida self-insured intergovernmental risk management association argues that a reinsurer “cherry picked” legal statements from cited cases while the reinsurer says the self-insured association’s coverage standard is “disingenuous and incorrect” (Public Risk Management of Florida v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., No. 18-1449, M.D. Fla.).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A general contractor insured on April 8 filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking coverage for an underlying lawsuit alleging that materials used as new fill for the levees in a flood protection project were deficient (Brosamer & Wall, Inc. v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, No. 19-872, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An assignee of insureds on April 9 sued an insurer and an insurance broker in a California court, seeking to recover a $2,328,381 default judgment that was entered against the insureds in an underlying personal injury lawsuit (Maria Isabel Felix v. North American Specialty Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-575198, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co.).
RICHMOND, Va. — An insured recently asked the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court's finding that its insurer has no duty to defend it against an underlying trademark infringement suit (Synaptek Corporation v. Sentinel Insurance Company, No. 18-968, E.D. Va., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199008).
CONCORD, N.H. — Reinsurers on April 9 asked a New Hampshire federal court to dismiss or stay insurers’ breach of contract case over $22 million in outstanding reinsurance billings because a lawsuit pending in a New Jersey state court can resolve all rights and obligations (United States Fire Insurance Co., et al. v. Equitas Insurance Ltd., et al., No. 18-01205, D. N.H.).
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Following the submission of post-trial briefs to an Illinois federal court, an insurance fund and a railroad company in April 8 response briefs further debate the issues of alter-ego and de facto merger with regard to payment for mine subsidence damages in their reinsurance coverage dispute (Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 17-3199, C.D. Ill.).
CHICAGO — An excess property and business interruption insurer claims in an April 5 complaint filed in Illinois federal court that it is entitled to rescind an excess policy issued to an insured poultry-processing company because the insured did not provide the excess insurer with accurate risk values of the properties for which it sought coverage (Arch Specialty Insurance Co. v. Koch Foods Inc., No. 19-2323, N.D. Ill.).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — An influential former county commissioner and a mining project she allegedly sank through knowingly false statements to current county officials recently briefed a Florida court (Maggy Hurchalla, et al. v. Homeowners Choice Property & Casualty Insurance Co. Inc., No. 4D18-2740, 4D18-2935, 4D18-1221, Fla. App., 4th Dist.).
ATLANTA — An insurance agency recently asked a Georgia appeals court to reverse a $398,132.76 jury verdict in favor of an insurer in the insurer’s lawsuit alleging that the agency breached an agreement when it bound the insurer to cover a mall without first referring the insurance application to the insurer’s underwriting department (Sidney C. Cox Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Southern Trust Insurance Company, No. A19A1114, Ga. App.).
ST. LOUIS — A beneficiary to preneed cemetery trust argues on April 5 to a Missouri federal judge that the special deputy receiver (SDR) for three insolvent insurers does not establish that a merchandise and services trust has belonged to the estate from the beginning of the receivership proceeding while a trustee on the same day did not dispute the SDR (Winner Road Properties LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C., No. 16-1395, E.D. Mo.).
HELENA, Mont. — A workers’ compensation insurer’s discussions with its insureds did not create a duty to prevent an employee’s exposure to asbestos, a W.R. Grace & Co. insurer and its amicus curiae tell the Montana Supreme Court in March 21 briefs (Maryland Casualty Co. v. The Asbestos Claims Court, et al., No. OP 19-0051, Mont. Sup.).
CHICAGO — An insurance company on Jan. 22 filed a brief in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals contending that it does not owe coverage to Emmis Communications Corp. because the policy the insurer issued “unambiguously excludes coverage” for litigation related to Emmis’ attempt to make the company privately held (Emmis Communications Corporation v. Illinois National Insurance Company, No. 18-3392, 7th Cir.).
RICHMOND, Va. — An insured recently asked the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a federal court’s finding that an alleged advertising injury regarding its use of a trademark is substantially the same over time without any meaningful interruption and, therefore, is not covered under its businessowners liability and commercial umbrella insurance policies (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Beach Mart, Inc., 18-1285, 4th Cir.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Employers on April 3 sought dismissal of certain claims in a New York federal court class action over an alleged captive insurance and reinsurance scheme in which home health aides allege that they were cheated out of lost wages and benefits (Ynes M. Gonzalez de Fuente, et al. v. Preferred Home Care of New York LLC, et al., No. 18-6749, E.D. N.Y.).
TRENTON, N.J. — An insurance and reinsurance broker argues in its March 29 reply brief to a New Jersey federal court that the filed-rate doctrine bars homeowners’ claims in a case concerning allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on a lender-placed insurance (LPI) scheme involving kickbacks, including reinsurance premiums (Edward Leo v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, et al., No. 17-05839, D. N.J.).
DETROIT — In a Michigan federal court lawsuit filed by a putative class of farmers against crop insurers and the federal agencies that reinsure them, the agencies argue in their April 1 summary judgment motion that they are not liable for the farmers’ loss of revenue protection in 2015 (Gregory Ackerman, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 17-11779, E.D. Mich.).
ST. LOUIS — In a breach of fiduciary duty case, the special deputy receiver (SDR) for three insolvent insurers in a March 27 brief tells a Missouri federal judge that a merchandise and services trust has belonged to the estate from the beginning of the receivership proceeding (Winner Road Properties LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C., No. 16-1395, E.D. Mo.).
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — An insurance fund and a railroad company on March 25 submitted their post-trial briefs to an Illinois federal court addressing alter-ego and de facto merger claims over payment for mine subsidence damages in their reinsurance coverage dispute (Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 17-3199, C.D. Ill.).