TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — After a Florida appeals court certified a question of “great public importance” to the Florida Supreme Court, an insurer recently told the Florida high court that it has standing to maintain a malpractice lawsuit against counsel who was hired to represent its insured where it has a duty to defend (Arch Insurance Company v. Kubicki Draper LLP, No. 19-673, Fla. Sup.).
NEW YORK — A reinsurer and its entities argue in a July 30 opposition that a New York federal court should deny a runoff insurer’s motion to dismiss their counterclaims for entitlement to advancement and indemnification under investment management agreements (IMAs) in a dispute over the misuse and mismanagement of $320 million (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation; Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658, S.D. N.Y.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A captive insurer and affiliates argue in an Aug. 9 reply brief to a New York federal court that home health aides “have been unable to identify any injury in fact, that is both individualized and concrete, and traceable” in their case alleging that a captive insurance and reinsurance scheme cheated the aides 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.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A reinsurer argues in its Aug. 7 opening brief that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse a lower court’s order denying the reinsurer’s motion to intervene and remand to allow the reinsurer to file its complaint-in-intervention and proceed with its claims in a creditor’s dispute over a $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al. v. Knight Insurance Company Ltd., Nos. 19-55346 & 19-55347, 9th Cir.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California insurance commissioner on Aug. 6 asked a California federal court to quash a deposition subpoena in a breach of contract lawsuit filed by a reinsurer and its affiliates in a Nebraska federal court over a workers’ compensation program involving a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 19-mc-00129, E.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — The Rockefeller University on Aug. 4 sued its primary and excess commercial general liability insurers in the New York County Supreme Court for breach of contract, bad faith and deceptive business practices and sought a declaration as to coverage for several hundred underlying claims alleging that its former employee sexually abused children for a span of 40 years (The Rockefeller University v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, et al., No. 654425/2019, N.Y. Sup., New York Co.).
BOSTON — A trustee for a bankrupt investment advisory company recently asked the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s dismissal of his complaint seeking excess insurance coverage for $7.7 million in attorney fees arising from a formal order of investigation brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (Craig R. Jalbert v. Zurich Services Corporation, et al, No. 18-2244, 1st Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A private label manufacturer for Wal-Mart Inc. recently asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling in favor of a commercial general liability insurer in its lawsuit seeking coverage for an underlying trademark infringement action brought against Wal-Mart, arguing that disputed issues of material fact preclude a summary judgment ruling (Hybrid Promotions LLC v. Federal Insurance Co., No. 18-56658, 9th Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — A man who obtained a default judgment and $1.5 million damages in a defamation lawsuit against Journal Register East Inc. (JRE) recently asked the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to find that he has standing to sue the publisher’s insurer to recover the damages, arguing that a lower federal court erred in finding that he was not the insured’s assignee (Thomas A. Riley Jr. v. Mutual Insurance Company Ltd., No. 19-1321, 3rd Cir.).
NEW YORK — A runoff insurer argues in an Aug. 1 motion that a recent criminal conviction of an investment company’s former executive confirms that he is not entitled to contractual advancement and indemnification of expenses and legal fees in connection with several lawsuits arising from the runoff insurer’s allegations of misuse of $320 million by affiliates of a failed Ponzi scheme (In re: Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, David Levy v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-3211, S.D. N.Y.).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — An insolvent surety tells a California federal judge in an Aug. 1 brief that it does not oppose an ex parte application for approval of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $3.6 million and a stay of a judgment’s enforcement in its reimbursement dispute against contractors to the extent the stay is issued only to contractors whose liability is secured by the proposed bond (Western Insurance Co. in liquidation v. Frontier Homes LLC., et al., No. 17-2181, C.D. Calif.).
NEW ORLEANS — A church insured recently asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of an insurer in its lawsuit alleging that the insurer breached the contract and acted in bad faith when it replaced roofing materials with lesser quality materials after the insured's property sustained hail and windstorm damage to its roof (University Baptist Church of Fort Worth v. Lexington Insurance Company, 18-11415, 5th Cir.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — In response to a motion to dismiss a case alleging that a captive insurance and reinsurance scheme cheated home health aides out of lost wages and benefits, the aides argue in a July 26 brief to a New York federal court that a captive insurer and affiliates’ “flawed” standing argument cannot keep out Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims (Ynes M. Gonzalez de Fuente, et al. v. Preferred Home Care of New York LLC, et al., No. 18-6749, E.D. N.Y.).
BOSTON — In a dispute over outstanding reinsurance billings for settlement payments made over sexual molestation allegations, an insurer argues in a July 19 surreply that a Massachusetts federal court should reject underwriters’ arguments regarding application of New York law and the parties’ intention to have a court rule on disputes that billings are barred by prior arbitration awards, which were raised for the first time in their reply brief to a motion to dismiss (Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 19-11056, D. Mass.).
OMAHA, Neb. — A reinsurer and its affiliates on July 26 asked a Nebraska federal court to dismiss insureds’ fourth amended answer, counterclaims and third-party claims and to strike a request for punitive damages in their breach of contract dispute over a workers’ compensation program involving a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 17-61, D. Neb.).
CHICAGO —A real estate services firm insured on July 17 sued its first-level excess professional liability insurer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for breach of contract and bad faith in a coverage dispute over an underlying fraudulent misrepresentation suit regarding a real estate appraisal the insured generated 13 years ago (Cushman & Wakefield of Pennsylvania v. Illinois National Insurance Company, No. 19-04790, N.D. Ill.).
ATLANTA — A Georgia appeals court received briefing in June as a man attempts to revive his action suing a John Doe defendant to pursue uninsured motorist benefits despite knowing both the actual party’s name and whereabouts (William Lawson v. Geico Casualty Co., No. A19A2011, Ga. App.).
ST. LOUIS — An air ambulance company on May 9 filed a brief in the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals contending that a district court wrongly determined that its membership plan constitutes an insurance business that is governed by North Dakota law. The company maintains that it is entitled to federal preemption of state law (Guardian Flight LLC v. Jon Godfread, et al., No. 19-1343, 8th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — An insurer recently asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that it has a duty to defend its pastor insured against three underlying lawsuits alleging that he sexually assaulted three parishioners, arguing that the lower court’s construction of its policies’ sexual or physical abuse or molestation coverage “neither mentions nor distinguishes case law interpreting those same policy provisions in a manner that precludes a duty to defend” (Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Terry R. Knighten, No. 18-50832, 5th Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — Parties in an insurance bad faith lawsuit stemming from an automobile accident recently asked a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel to determine whether a federal judge erred in precluding an insured from providing testimony from her expert witness and whether the judge provided “confusing and erroneous” jury instructions as to the insured’s burden of proof (Maria Antonio v. Progressive Insurance Co., No. 19-1074, 3rd Cir.).