DENVER — An investor argues in a Nov. 6 opening brief with the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that he has a valid claim under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act with regard to his dispute over an alleged reinsurance scheme and that the lower court erred in finding that the claim is reverse-preempted under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (Albert Ogles v. Guggenheim Investments, et al., No. 19-3154, 10th Cir.).
MIAMI — A hotel developer on Nov. 6 sued its insurer in a Florida court, arguing that the applicable deductible under the builders risk insurance policy is the “Rain, Sleet Ice, or Snow Limited Coverage Endorsement” and not the “Named Windstorm” deductible (550 Seabreeze Development LLC v. Illinois Union Insurance Company, No. 19-62775, Fla. Cir., 11th Jud. Cir.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California court erred in sustaining demurrers without leave to amend in a construction defects insurance lawsuit because the discovery that an insurer’s obligations to a subcontractor arose from fraudulent activity should not result in the general contractor’s insurers avoiding their obligations to their insured “in their entirety,” punishing the subcontractor’s insurer for fulfilling its obligations to it insurer, the subcontractor’s insurer argues in a Sept. 4 appellant brief filed in a California appellate court (The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Co., et al., No. H046784, Calif. App., 6th Dist.).
UTICA, N.Y. — An insurer argues in a Nov. 1 opposition brief to a New York federal court that a reinsurer failed to show a “complete absence of evidence” for a $6.25 million jury verdict in a dispute concerning two separate reinsurance certificates and coverage for settlements of asbestos claims (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A runoff insurer argues in an Oct. 30 opposition brief that a New York federal judge should deny reconsideration of a decision to defer ruling on an investment company’s former executive’s post-acquittal relief for advancement of $708,784.77 in legal fees and costs until the U.S. government’s appeal of a judgment acquitting the former executive in a related criminal action has been decided (In re: Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, David Levy v. Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, No. 19-3211, S.D. N.Y.).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A question certified to the Florida Supreme Court by a Florida state appellate panel in a malpractice insurance dispute is too broad and failed to properly recognize that, under state law, two “distinct types of tripartite relationship may be created,” a law firm argues in an Oct. 2 respondent’s brief filed in the state Supreme Court (Arch Insurance Company v. Kubicki Draper LLP, No. 19-673, Fla. Sup.).
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal should reverse a district court’s ruling that an insurer owes no coverage for environmental contamination claims asserted by neighbors of an insured property, the neighbors assert in an Oct. 23 reply brief, contending that even if the insured failed to provide timely notice of the claims, the insurer was not prejudiced by the alleged late notice (Carmine Greene, et al. v. Kenneth Will, et al., No. 19-2260, 7th Cir.).
TACOMA, Wash. — A Washington federal court should uphold a bankruptcy court’s denial of an insurer’s bid to vacate a stipulated order barring its contribution claims against other insurers for asbestos claims against Chapter 11 debtor Fraser’s Boiler Service Inc., the debtor argues in an Oct. 28 response brief on appeal (National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Fraser’s Boiler Service, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-5648, W.D. Wash.).
OCALA, Fla. — An insured on Oct. 8 filed a third amended complaint against its surplus lines insurer in a Florida court for breach of contract and declaratory relief, seeking more than $15,000 in building damage caused by Hurricane Irma (The Chrysalis Center Inc. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. 35-2018-CA-000980, Fla. Cir.).
PANAMA CITY, Fla.— An insured on Oct. 29 sued its federal flood insurer in a federal court, alleging that the insurer breached a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) when it denied coverage for the insured’s flood damage caused by Hurricane Matthew (Harper’s Retreat, LLC v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company, No. 19-00424, N.D. Fla.).
JASPER, Ala. — An Alabama federal court should dismiss a woman’s claims against an insurer in a lawsuit against the city of Jasper and its employees over sexual misconduct in a jail allegations because no subject matter jurisdiction exists, the insurer argues in an Oct. 10 reply brief (Whitley Goodson v. J.C. Poe Jr., et al., No. 19-1399, N.D. Ala.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An additional insured general contractor recently asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that commercial general liability insurance policies' business risk exclusions preclude coverage for construction defects alleged by homeowners (Pulte Home Corporation v. TIG Insurance Company, No. 18-55792, 9th Cir.).
ATLANTA — A car dealership and reinsurer argue in an Oct. 7 reply brief that the Georgia Court of Appeals should find a vehicle service contracts administrator liable for interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum on the balance of an arbitration award while the contracts administrator argues on the same day that the court should vacate the $462,781 arbitration award as there is no evidence other than the arbitrator “simply dictating new and different terms than the parties agreed upon” (Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al. v. Interstate National Dealer Services Inc., No. A20A0036, Interstate National Dealer Services Inc. v. Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al., No. A20A0037, Ga. App.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Insureds on Oct. 25 asked a Puerto Rico federal judge to exclude certain settling insurers in an award of summary judgment to the Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) and to other insurers, including some that are in liquidation, on class action allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act (Noemi Torres Ronda, et al. v. Joint Underwriting Association, et al., No. 11-1826, D. Puerto Rico).
DENVER — A 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel will hear oral arguments on Nov. 20 in an insurance bad faith dispute in which an insured argues that a federal district court abused its discretion in excluding certain evidence at trial (Patrick Slavin v. Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Co., No. 18-1347, 10th Cir.).
JONESBORO, Ark. — An insurer on Oct. 15 filed suit in a federal court in Arkansas, seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or indemnify against an underlying lawsuit seeking damages for flooding on a parcel of land in Mississippi County, Ark. (Country Mutual Insurance Company v. Samuel Jackson, et al., No. 19-00278, E.D. Ark.).
CHICAGO — A federal district court erred in dismissing an insured’s breach of contract claims against his automobile insurance provider and its parent company because the defendants failed to indemnify him in conflict with the insurer’s express policy language, the insured argues in an Oct. 21 reply brief filed in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Nathan Sigler v. GEICO Casualty Co., et al., No. 19-2272, 7th Cir.).
NEW YORK — In a reply brief filed Oct. 18, an insurer reinforces its motion to dismiss a financial services company insured’s breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit seeking indemnity for an underlying settlement arising from alleged “spoof emails” that resulted in a $5.9 million fraudulent wire transfer, contending that there “is no question that the loss at issue ‘arose out of’ dishonest, fraudulent and/or criminal conduct” that is excluded from coverage (SS&C Technology Holdings, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company, No. 19-07859, S.D. N.Y.).
SANFORD, Fla. — Florida insureds recently sued their homeowners insurer for breach of contract in state court, seeking coverage for wind damage caused by Hurricane Irma (John Sheehan, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 2019-CA-002672, Fla. Cir., 18th Jud. Cir., Seminole Co.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters and the Texas Association of Public Insurance Adjusters on Oct. 7 filed an amicus curiae brief in support of an insured’s appeal of a lower court's ruling that the one-year statute of limitations under the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) barred his federal flood insurance claim arising from a May 2015 storm in Houston, arguing that interpreting the NFIA to “create exclusive federal jurisdiction over” lawsuits against Write Your Own insurers “is not only at odds with the statute’s plain language, but also raises serious constitutional questions” (Ali Ekhlassi v. National Lloyds Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-312, U.S. Sup.).