RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Because its breach of contract dispute concerns whether coverage exists for $8.6 million in equipment breakdown claims and does not concern the interpretation of a reinsurance agreement, an insurer argues on June 5 that a California federal court should deny a reinsurer’s request to arbitrate or dismiss (Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co. v. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co., No. 19-00531, C.D. Calif.).
ATLANTA — A district court did not err in granting a disability plan’s motion for judgment on the administrative record because the plan’s award of disability benefits to a former National Football League (NFL) player was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, the plan argues in its June 5 brief to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Darren Mickell v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Players Retirement Plan, No. 19-10651, 11th Cir.).
CAMDEN, N.J. — In separate reply briefs filed May 13, an institutional investor and a pension trust each argue to a New Jersey federal court that they have the largest financial interest to serve as lead plaintiff in securities class actions against a reinsurer and former officers over allegations of misrepresentation in underwriting and risk management techniques and a reinsurance portfolio’s risk (Michael Wigglesworth v. Maiden Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 19-05296, D. N.J.).
HARTFORD, Conn. — An insurer on May 28 asked a Connecticut Superior Court to grant it judgment on claims that it violated the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), arguing that its insured’s assignees have failed “to plead more than a single instance of insurance misconduct involving other claims or unrelated insureds” as required to state a CUIPA claim (William Ghio v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., No. X07-HHD-CV-19-6104759-S, Conn. Super., 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 849).
NEW YORK — Calling the allegations against it the “written equivalent of a Russian nesting doll,” an investment holdings company argues in a May 31 reply brief that a New York federal court should dismiss a second amended complaint filed by two hedge funds’ liquidators concerning the alleged massive fraud scheme that caused the hedge funds’ collapse (Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
ORLANDO, Fla. — A condominium association on May 16 sued an insurer for breach of contract, unfair settlement practices and bad faith in a Florida court, alleging that its covered property damages caused by a Sept. 10, 2017, storm “were obvious had Defendant conducted an impartial and adequate inspection of the premises” (Reserve at Pershing Oaks Condominium Association v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. 19-00931, Fla. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments on July 8 in an insurance coverage dispute in which an insured contends he is entitled to full payment of medical expenses from his insurer related to injuries he suffered in a car accident (Seberaino Jimenez v. Progressive Preferred Insurance Company, No. 18-16411, 9th Cir.).
CHICAGO — A reinsurer tells an Illinois federal court in a May 24 opposition that an insolvent insurer’s liquidator seeks to vacate or modify a $437,000 arbitration award for attorney fees “not because of the purported reason that the panel exceeded its authority in issuing the award, but because it does not agree with the panel’s interpretation of the parties’ contracts” (Catalina Holdings [Bermuda] Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-5642, N.D. Ill.).
NEW ORLEANS — A company that conducted fracking operations on an insured’s facility on May 15 filed a petition asking a panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reconsider its ruling that reversed a federal court's finding that a site pollution legal liability insurer waived its subrogation rights under an onshore master services agreement (MSA) (Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co., No. 17-20678 consolidated with No. 18-20239, 5th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — In a May 20 reply brief filed in the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, an insured argues that a lower federal court erred in ruling that the actions by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the Superstorm Sandy claims review process are beyond the scope of judicial oversight in his quest to reverse the dismissal of his lawsuit alleging that he was wrongfully denied $141,274.50 in insurance proceeds for Superstorm Sandy damage to his Long Beach, N.Y., home (David Clutter v. William B. Long, et al., No. 18-3520, 2nd Cir.).
SEATTLE — A reinsurer in a May 23 motion asks a Washington federal court to compel arbitration of a breach of contract case brought by an association of Washington public entities regarding settlement of a lawsuit over police officers’ alleged excessive force (Washington Cities Insurance Authority v. Ironshore Indemnity Inc., No. 19-00054, W.D. Wash.).
BOSTON — Underwriters in a May 23 motion seek dismissal of an insurer’s Massachusetts federal court case seeking to compel arbitration of their dispute regarding outstanding reinsurance billings for sexual molestation because the underwriters argue that the dispute has already been resolved (Century Indemnity Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 19-11056, D. Mass.).
BOSTON — An insured on May 21 sued its insurer for bad faith in a federal district court, alleging that the insurer has made no payment on almost half of its 228 claims for a total of $39.6 million in damage caused by Hurricane Maria (Capital Crossing Servicing Company LLC v. Mapfre Praico Insurance Company, No. 19-11157, D. Mass.).
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — In its May 20 reply brief, a reinsurer argues to a Puerto Rico federal court that an insurer’s dispute regarding hurricane losses should be dismissed based upon a reinsurance agreement’s unambiguous and enforceable arbitration clause (Integrand Assurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., et al., No. 19-01111, D. Puerto Rico).
ST. LOUIS — An insured recently asked the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling in favor of primary and excess insurers in the insurers’ lawsuit disputing coverage for its losses related to four rock falls (Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, et al. v. Interstate Underground Warehouse & Storage Inc., No. 18-3448, 8th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Parties on June 10 will present oral arguments to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a case challenging a ruling that an insurer had no duty to defend its insureds, but that the insurer was not entitled to recover funds it already spent on its insureds’ defense (Nautilus Insurance Co. v. Access Medical LLC., et al., Nos. 17-16265, 17-16272, 17-16273, 9th Cir.).
MIAMI — A homeowners insurer recently asked a Florida appeals court to reverse a lower court’s ruling that dismissed with prejudice its request for mandatory temporary injunctive relief in a dispute arising from property damage, arguing that injunctive relief or, in the alternative, specific performance to compel the right to repair, is an appropriate remedy (People's Trust Insurance Company v. Kimberly Brown, et al., No. 3D18-2071, Fla. App., 3rd Dist.).
RICHMOND, Va. — Insureds recently asked the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that an excess insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify them against an underlying lawsuit seeking recovery for the government's alleged injuries for false claims for Medicaid reimbursements, contending that the lower court applied the wrong precedent in reaching its decision (Affinity Living Group, LLC, et al. v. StarStone Specialty Insurance Company, et al., No. 18-2376, 4th Cir.).
HELENA, Mont. — The court should reject a plaintiff’s “distorted” and backward-working attempt at creating liability on behalf of a workers’ compensation insurer for asbestos exposures and instead adopt sound analytical framework from the Restatement of Torts, an insurer tells the Montana Supreme Court in a May 3 reply brief (Maryland Casualty Co. v. The Asbestos Claims Court, et al., No. OP 19-0051, Mont. Sup.).
OMAHA, Neb. — In a breach of contract dispute, a reinsurer and its subsidiaries, which are part of workers’ compensation program involving a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), argue in a May 15 filing in Nebraska federal court that investment companies waived their right to arbitrate claims and that the reinsurer and subsidiaries have no duty to arbitrate (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 17-61, D. Neb.).