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.).
CHICAGO — An insurance company on Jan. 22 filed a brief in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals contending that it does not owe coverage to Emmis Communications Corp. because the policy the insurer issued “unambiguously excludes coverage” for litigation related to Emmis’ attempt to make the company privately held (Emmis Communications Corporation v. Illinois National Insurance Company, No. 18-3392, 7th Cir.).
RICHMOND, Va. — An insured recently asked the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a federal court’s finding that an alleged advertising injury regarding its use of a trademark is substantially the same over time without any meaningful interruption and, therefore, is not covered under its businessowners liability and commercial umbrella insurance policies (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Beach Mart, Inc., 18-1285, 4th Cir.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Employers on April 3 sought dismissal of certain claims in a New York federal court class action over an alleged captive insurance and reinsurance scheme in which home health aides allege that they were cheated 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.).
TRENTON, N.J. — An insurance and reinsurance broker argues in its March 29 reply brief to a New Jersey federal court that the filed-rate doctrine bars homeowners’ claims in a case concerning allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on a lender-placed insurance (LPI) scheme involving kickbacks, including reinsurance premiums (Edward Leo v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, et al., No. 17-05839, D. N.J.).
DETROIT — In a Michigan federal court lawsuit filed by a putative class of farmers against crop insurers and the federal agencies that reinsure them, the agencies argue in their April 1 summary judgment motion that they are not liable for the farmers’ loss of revenue protection in 2015 (Gregory Ackerman, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 17-11779, E.D. Mich.).
ST. LOUIS — In a breach of fiduciary duty case, the special deputy receiver (SDR) for three insolvent insurers in a March 27 brief tells a Missouri federal judge that a merchandise and services trust has belonged to the estate from the beginning of the receivership proceeding (Winner Road Properties LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C., No. 16-1395, E.D. Mo.).
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — An insurance fund and a railroad company on March 25 submitted their post-trial briefs to an Illinois federal court addressing alter-ego and de facto merger claims over 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.).
TRENTON, N.J. — A mortgage company argues in a March 25 reply brief to a New Jersey federal court that the filed-rate doctrine bars homeowners’ claims in a lawsuit concerning allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on a lender-placed insurance (LPI) scheme involving the use of kickbacks, including reinsurance premiums (Edward Leo v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, et al., No. 17-05839, D. N.J.).
LOS ANGELES — An insurer on Jan. 11 filed a brief in a California appellate court contending that a mother and daughter have waived their right to appeal a lower court’s ruling on an arbitration award related to bad faith claim stemming from injuries they suffered in an automobile accident (Dionne Cooper, et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al., No. B292019, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 2).
AUSTIN, Texas — Insurers and claimants recently filed briefs in the Texas Supreme Court, disputing whether an appeals court’s decision that held that the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of Texas (MLIIA) conferred direct standing on claimants to file an action under an insurance doctrine should be upheld (Truck Insurance Exchange & Team Health, Inc. v. Marcus Hernandez And Diane Hernandez, No. 18-0717, Texas Sup.).
ATLANTA — The Georgia Court of Appeals should affirm a trial court’s ruling that no coverage is owed for an underlying suit alleging bodily injuries caused by exposure to lead paint because the policy at issue includes a lead exclusion that clearly bars coverage, the insurer argues in a recently filed appellee brief (Mary Douglas, et al. v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., No, A19A0925, Ga. App., 2019 GA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 64).