HARTFORD, Conn. — In a Nov. 21 brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court, an insured seeking coverage for underlying asbestos and silica claims objects to the Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association’s application to file an amicus curiae brief, arguing that rejection of the application is warranted because there is significant overlap between the amicus and the insurers involved in the coverage dispute (R.T. Vanderbilt Co. Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., et al., Nos. SC 20000, SC20001, SC20003, Conn. Sup.).
ST. LOUIS — An insurer and a mortgage company recently submitted arguments to the Missouri Court of Appeals, disputing whether a trial court’s ruling that the mortgage company was not entitled to coverage related to an underlying lawsuit because it did not timely assert that its insurance claims should be affirmed (Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. v. Underwriters At Lloyd's London, No. ED106566, Mo. App.).
SAN FRANCISCO —Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar II argues in a Nov. 16 brief to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), as a primary plan, is responsible for making payment to insureds of workers’ compensation plans that become insolvent (California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Alex Azar II, et al., Nos. 17-56526 & 17-56528, 9th Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — The special deputy receiver for three insolvent insurers argues in a Nov. 19 reply to a Missouri federal court that responses to its motion to abstain or dismiss a cross-claim in a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit ignore the effect of a liquidation order (Winner Road Properties LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C., No. 16-1395, E.D. Mo.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — An excess health care excess liability insurer on Nov. 14 filed suit in the Delaware Superior Court seeking a declaration that it has no duty to indemnify its insureds for any part of a $73.21 million verdict recently rendered against its insured’s affiliate in an underlying medical malpractice lawsuit (Steadfast Insurance Company v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., No. No. N18C-11-127, Del. Super.).
CHICAGO — An insured recently replied to an insurer’s response in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, reiterating its argument seeking reversal of a federal judge's ruling in favor of the insurer on the applicability of the sudden and accidental exception to the pollution exclusion (Varlen Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-3212, 7th Cir.).
OKLAHOMA CITY — An insured and its insurer on Nov. 9 filed a joint motion for an agreed protective order in an Oklahoma federal court, seeking protection for document production that may include confidential information in a coverage dispute over earthquake damage (VTT Management Inc v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 17-767, W.D. Okla.).
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — An insurer alleges in a Nov. 8 complaint filed in a Florida federal court that it has no duty to defend or indemnify a contractor against defects allegations in a condominium development because the policy does not provide coverage for new construction (Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. WCI Communities Inc., No. 18-62716, S.D. Fla.).
FLORENCE, S.C. — In a Nov. 8 complaint, an insurer seeks a declaration from a South Carolina federal court that it has no duty to defend or indemnify contractors against defects allegations in a residential development because no “property damage” occurred during the policy period (Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Carlos Castro, et al., No. 18-03026, D. S.C.).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — In a breach of contract and bad faith case based on the denial of disability benefits, a reinsurer argues to an Alabama federal court in its Nov. 6 reply brief in further support of a motion to dismiss that no contract existed between it and an insured (Horace R. Theriot Jr. v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-688, M.D. Ala.).
UTICA, N.Y. — In response to a reinsurer’s motion for reconsideration of a collateral estoppel issue in a dispute over settlements of asbestos claims, an insurer argues on Nov. 6 to a New York federal court that there are no “exceptional circumstances” warranting reconsideration (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Missouri trial court erred in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s insurance bad faith claims against an insurer upon remand from the state’s supreme court because the high court’s mandate, which was entered by the trial court, “was a partial summary judgment which did not put an end to the litigation” against the insurer, the plaintiff argues in an Oct. 9 appellant brief filed in the Missouri Court of Appeals (Franklin D. Allen v. Atain Specialty Insurance Co., No. WD81677, Mo. App.).
ST. LOUIS — State insurance guaranty associations and banks filed opposition briefs on Nov. 5 in response to five summary judgment motions on key issues in a Missouri federal court dispute over the mishandling of funds belonging to insolvent funeral insurers (Jo Ann Howard & Associates P.C., et al. v. J. Douglas Cassity, et al., No. 09-01252, E.D. Mo.).
HELENA, Mont. — A professional liability insurer recently asked the Montana Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s ruling that held that a $10 million stipulated judgment against its insured was reasonable, contending that the lower court “applied an improper legal framework” to decide the reasonableness of the stipulated judgment (Draggin' Y Cattle Company, Inc., et al. v. Larry Addink, et al., No. 17-0731, Mon. Sup.).
SEATTLE — A Washington man on Oct. 4 filed a brief in state appellate court arguing that a trial court erroneously granted summary judgment to Travelers Commercial Insurance Co. with regard to his claim seeking coverage for injuries he sustained while riding his bicycle (Todd McLaughlin v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, No. 78534-6, Wash. App., Div. 1).
LAKELAND, Fla. — Whether a judge conducted the proper analysis in declining to strike a juror, granting directed verdict on causation in an automobile insurance case, and in not stopping extreme comments at closing arguments that changed how the jury viewed the case are before a Florida appeals court after briefing wrapped up recently (Jennie Buziak, et al. v. Amalia Diaz, Nos. 2D17-4689 & 2D18-0387, Fla. App., 2nd Dist.).
HAMMOND, Ind. — An insured alleges in a Nov. 5 complaint filed in an Indiana federal court that an insurer breached its contract and acted in bad faith when denying coverage based upon a condominium exclusion for cracking damage caused by the insured’s work (Gary Material Supply LLC v. Western World Insurance Group, No. 18-00421, N.D. Ind.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — In South Carolina federal court, a bank sued for its role as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurer on Nov. 2 sought summary judgment against an insurer regarding claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy because those claims are time-barred (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
AUSTIN, Texas — No coverage is owed for a collapse that occurred during the construction of a hotel because the collapse is precluded by a policy’s earth movement exclusion, sewer exclusion and defects exclusion, an insurer argues in a Nov. 2 response to the insured’s motion for summary judgment (White Lodging Services Corp., et al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 17-277, W.D. Texas).
MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Oct. 28 heard oral arguments in a coverage dispute over whether a pollution liability insurer owes coverage to an additional insured for underlying property damage claims arising out of a sewage backup (Steadfast Insurance Co. v. Greenwich Insurance Co., No. 2016AP1631, Wis. Sup.).