SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An insurer tells a Puerto Rico federal court on April 23 to deny a request by reinsurers to dismiss or compel arbitration of the insurer’s lawsuit regarding hurricane losses because the arbitration clause is invalid and unenforceable under Puerto Rico law (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
DETROIT — A putative class of dry bean farmers argue to a Michigan federal court in an April 22 response that crop insurers and the federal agencies that reinsure them are liable to them for loss of revenue protection in 2015 because the federal agencies failed to use the actual market price as the harvest price to provide revenue protection under a dry bean revenue endorsement (DBRE) (Gregory Ackerman, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 17-11779, E.D. Mich.).
NEW ORLEANS — A resource company and insurer recently submitted arguments in the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether a district court’s decision excluding coverage for an underlying lawsuit related to a damaged well should be upheld (CBX Resources LLC v. Ace American Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-50740, 5th Cir.).
ATLANTA — An au pair broker services company recently asked the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that its errors and omissions professional liability insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify it against an underlying class action lawsuit alleging that it was part of a nationwide conspiracy to illegally suppress au pair wages, contending that the “prior knowledge” exclusion did not bar coverage because it did not expect to be sued for negligence by one of its au pairs (Berkley Assurance Company v. Expert Group International Inc., 18-14506, 11th Cir.).
POCATELLO, Idaho — A corporation insured on April 22 sued its insurer for breach of contract, bad faith and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging that its claim for professional errors coverage for underlying allegations by one of its customers was not fairly debatable (Nelson & Pade, Inc., et al. v. The Hanover Insurance Co., No. 19-00147, D. Idaho).
ST. LOUIS — Responding to a Missouri federal judge’s second memorandum and order with instructions, the special deputy receiver (SDR) for three insolvent insurers on April 22 argues that a merchandise and services trust remains property of a receivership proceeding subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the receivership court and that the SDR’s settlement with a beneficiary to a preneed cemetery trust did not effect that status (Winner Road Properties LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C., No. 16-1395, E.D. Mo.).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A Florida couple is asking a state appellate court to find that a trial court erred when it ruled that an insurer complied with an insurance policy, and the couple contends that the insurer’s payment of an appraiser’s award constitutes a confession that it breached the policy (Hershel Bryant, et al. v. Geovera Specialty Insurance Company, No. 4D18-0189, Fla. App., 4th Dist.).
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, 4th Cir.).
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.).