WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Two Florida homeowners on Jan. 14 appealed a state trial court ruling that they lack standing to bring an insurance coverage claim because they assigned their insurance rights to a company that performed remediation work on their home (Mohammed Sidiq, et al. v. Tower Hill Select Insurance Company, No. 4D18-2177, Fla. App., 4th Dist.).
HELENA, Mont. — Two recent briefs filed in the Montana Supreme Court question whether a state statute provides an absolute limit on the types of costs and expenses insureds can recover in suits against insurers or whether an exception permits additional recovery (Kyra King v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. DA 18-0503, Mont. Sup.).
NEW YORK — In seven separate motions, third-party defendants on June 14 asked a New York federal court to dismiss a runoff insurer’s third-party complaint alleging aiding-and-abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in a “massive fraudulent scheme” for failing to make particularized allegations against them (Melanie L. Cyganowski v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
CHICAGO — An insolvent insurer’s liquidator argues in a June 7 reply filed in Illinois federal court that a panel exceeded its authority when it issued attorney fees in its $437,000 arbitration award to a reinsurer (Catalina Holdings [Bermuda] Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-5642, N.D. Ill.).
BOSTON — Stating that a confirmation proceeding was not a “prior pending action,” an insurer in a June 13 brief opposes a request to dismiss a Massachusetts federal court case seeking to compel arbitration of a dispute over outstanding reinsurance billings for sexual molestation (Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 19-11056, D. Mass.).
SEATTLE — Citing a reinsurer’s failure to find any reinsurance exemption to Washington’s anti-arbitration regulation, an association of state public entities argues against the reinsurer’s request for arbitration of their breach of contract dispute regarding settlement of a lawsuit over police officers’ alleged excessive force in a June 10 brief in a Washington federal court (Washington Cities Insurance Authority v. Ironshore Indemnity Inc., No. 19-00054, W.D. Wash.).
OMAHA, Neb. — A reinsurer and its affiliates moved to dismiss counterclaims on June 7 in their breach of contract dispute over a workers’ compensation program, telling a Nebraska federal court that the counterclaims “are a hodgepodge of conclusory allegations and unsupported assertions that fail to meet basic pleading standards” (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 17-61, D. Neb.).
ST. LOUIS — An insured who sought coverage after a vehicle accident and an insurer recently submitted briefs to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals disputing whether a lower court’s decision that the policy did not entitle the insured to stack underinsured motorist insurance (UIM) coverage for three vehicles should be reversed (Renae Strain v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, No. 18-1587, 8th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals was set to hear oral arguments on June 10 in a case in which an insured contends that its insurer engaged in deception by misrepresenting that it was investigating a claim filed by the insured, when the insurer was not. Consequently, the insurer says that it was forced to conduct its own inquiry to “prove” the cause of a specific loss and the resulting damages (NAZ LLC v United National Insurance Company, No. 18-31008, 5th Cir.).
ATLANTA — Appellants recently asked the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling that they breached their duties to pay workers’ compensation insurance policy deductibles, arguing that the insurer “wrote a confusing, convoluted” policy that fails to “clearly and unambiguously establish” that they are liable for their alleged deductible obligations (Zurich American Insurance Company v. G&S Leasing Group VI Inc., et al., No. 17-15625 consolidated with No. 18-10706, 11th Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — A trial court correctly determined that a pollution exclusion does not bar coverage for contamination of oil in a storage tank caused by an insured’s work; however, the trial court incorrectly determined that the insurer was entitled to rescind the insured’s policy, the party seeking coverage for damage caused by the insured’s work argues in a May 22 brief to the Second District California Court of Appeal (NRG Delta LLC v. Endurance American Specialty Insurance Co., No. B285909, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 5, 2019 CA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1450).
CHICAGO — No coverage is owed to an insured for claims asserted against the insured by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency because the policies at issue bar coverage, the insurers maintain in a May 31 complaint filed in Illinois federal court (Markel Insurance Co., et al. v. J. Solotken & Co. Inc., No. 19-3661, N.D. Ill.).
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — An insured has sufficiently pleaded her claim for bad faith against her automobile insurance provider, and a judge should reject the insurer’s argument that the claim must fail because it presupposes that insurers breached their policy by not paying the insured’s underinsured motorist bodily injury claim, the insured argues in a May 20 opposition brief filed in New Mexico federal court (Yvonne Apodaca v. Young America Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-399, D. N.M.).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Because its breach of contract dispute concerns whether coverage exists for $8.6 million in equipment breakdown claims and does not concern the interpretation of a reinsurance agreement, an insurer argues on June 5 that a California federal court should deny a reinsurer’s request to arbitrate or dismiss (Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co. v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co., No. 19-00531, C.D. Calif.).
ATLANTA — A district court did not err in granting a disability plan’s motion for judgment on the administrative record because the plan’s award of disability benefits to a former National Football League (NFL) player was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, the plan argues in its June 5 brief to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Darren Mickell v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Players Retirement Plan, No. 19-10651, 11th Cir.).
CAMDEN, N.J. — In separate reply briefs filed May 13, an institutional investor and a pension trust each argue to a New Jersey federal court that they have the largest financial interest to serve as lead plaintiff in securities class actions against a reinsurer and former officers over allegations of misrepresentation in underwriting and risk management techniques and a reinsurance portfolio’s risk (Michael Wigglesworth v. Maiden Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 19-05296, D. N.J.).
NEW YORK — Calling the allegations against it the “written equivalent of a Russian nesting doll,” an investment holdings company argues in a May 31 reply brief that a New York federal court should dismiss a second amended complaint filed by two hedge funds’ liquidators concerning the alleged massive fraud scheme that caused the hedge funds’ collapse (Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
ORLANDO, Fla. — A condominium association on May 16 sued an insurer for breach of contract, unfair settlement practices and bad faith in a Florida court, alleging that its covered property damages caused by a Sept. 10, 2017, storm “were obvious had Defendant conducted an impartial and adequate inspection of the premises” (Reserve at Pershing Oaks Condominium Association v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. 19-00931, Fla. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments on July 8 in an insurance coverage dispute in which an insured contends he is entitled to full payment of medical expenses from his insurer related to injuries he suffered in a car accident (Seberaino Jimenez v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, No. 18-16411, 9th Cir.).
CHICAGO — A reinsurer tells an Illinois federal court in a May 24 opposition that an insolvent insurer’s liquidator seeks to vacate or modify a $437,000 arbitration award for attorney fees “not because of the purported reason that the panel exceeded its authority in issuing the award, but because it does not agree with the panel’s interpretation of the parties’ contracts” (Catalina Holdings [Bermuda] Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-5642, N.D. Ill.).