We use cookies on this site to enable your digital experience. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our cookie policy. close

Mealey's Insurance Pleadings

  • April 26, 2019

    Reinsurance Agreements’ Arbitration Clause Is Null And Void, Insurer Argues

    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).

  • April 25, 2019

    Farmers: Federal Agencies Liable For Loss Of Revenue Protection For Crop Insurance

    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.).

  • April 25, 2019

    Resource Company, Insurer Dispute Whether Damages Related To Well Were Covered

    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.).

  • April 24, 2019

    Insured Seeks Reversal Of No Coverage Ruling For Au Pair Wage Class Action

    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.).

  • April 24, 2019

    Claim For Professional Errors Coverage Is Not Fairly Debatable, Insured Argues

    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).

  • April 23, 2019

    SDR Tells Federal Court: Trust Remains Property Of Insurers’ Receivership

    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.).

  • April 22, 2019

    Couple: Insurer Admitted Policy Breach In Water Damage Dispute

    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.).

  • April 18, 2019

    Reinsurers Seek Dismissal Or Arbitration Of Dispute Over $26M Award

    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.).

  • April 16, 2019

    Insurer Opposes Reinsurer’s Demand For Arbitration Of Hurricane Loss Dispute

    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).

  • April 16, 2019

    Self-Insured Association, Reinsurer File Replies To Summary Judgment Motions

    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.).

  • April 15, 2019

    Insured Seeks Coverage For Claim Over Deficient Materials Used In Flood Project

    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.).

  • April 15, 2019

    Assignee Sues Insurer, Broker Seeking Coverage For $2.3M Default Judgment

    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.).

  • April 12, 2019

    Insured Asks 4th Circuit To Reverse No Coverage Ruling For Trademark Dispute

    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.).

  • April 11, 2019

    Reinsurers Seek Dismissal Or Stay Of Insurers’ Breach Of Contract Dispute

    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.).

  • April 10, 2019

    Alter-Ego, De Facto Merger Claims Debated In Reinsurance Dispute Over Mine Damages

    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.).

  • April 10, 2019

    Insurer Seeks Rescission Of Policy Following Explosion At Poultry-Processing Facility

    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.).

  • April 10, 2019

    Insured, Mining Project Brief Florida Court On False Statements Case

    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.).

  • April 9, 2019

    Insurance Agency Asks Georgia Court To Reverse $398,132 Verdict In Insurer’s Favor

    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.).

  • April 9, 2019

    Responses Given To Insurers’ Receiver’s Memorandum On Merchandise, Services Trust

    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.).

  • April 9, 2019

    W.R. Grace Workers’ Comp Insurer Says It Owed No Duty To Prevent Asbestos Exposures

    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.).