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.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Oct. 25 in an insurance dispute in which an insured contends that a lower court wrongly dismissed his lawsuit because his auto insurer is liable for breach of contract for its failure to respond to his claim (Edward Stolz v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, No. 17-17214, 9th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insured recently asked a California appeals court to reverse a lower court’s ruling in favor of excess insurers in its lawsuit seeking coverage for settlements paid to underlying claimants who sued the insured for asbestos-related bodily injury, arguing that the lower court misinterpreted the insurance policies’ “other insurance” clauses in concluding that horizontal exhaustion applies notwithstanding the attachment points in the excess insurance policies “that envision vertical exhaustion” (SantaFe Braun, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, No. A151428, Calif. App., 1st Dist.).
AUSTIN, Texas — Texas law should permit courts to look outside the pleadings when determining whether there existed a duty to defend an insured who concedes that she committed fraud, an insurance company tells the Texas Supreme Court in a Sept. 4 opening brief (Loya Insurance Co. v. Osbaldo Hurtado Avalos, et al., No. 18-0837, Texas Sup.).
UTICA, N.Y. — After a $6.25 million judgment was entered against it in a dispute concerning two separate reinsurance certificates and coverage for settlements of asbestos claims, a reinsurer asks on Oct. 18 that a New York federal court grant judgment as a matter of law on an insurer’s breach of contract claims and affirmative defenses and, in the alternative, grant a new trial on the insurer’s breach of contract claims and the reinsurer’s claim for breach of the duty of utmost good faith (Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Century Indemnity Co., No. 13-995, N.D. N.Y.).
TAMPA, Fla. — An insurer on Oct. 18 filed a notice of removal in a Florida federal court of an insured’s breach of contract lawsuit over Hurricane Irma damage (Dana Cuculici v. Lexington Insurance Company, No. 19-02575, M.D. Fla.).
TACOMA, Wash. — A couple tells a Washington appeals panel in a June 4 brief that a trial court judge erred when awarding summary judgment to their title insurance company on its argument that it had no duty to defend them in a quiet title suit brought by their neighbors, arguing that the duty to defend was triggered under the “eight corners” rule (Neil Rabinowitz, et al. v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., et al., No. 52898-3-II, Wash. App., 2nd Div.).
ST. LOUIS — Two banks argue in a Sept. 24 reply brief that insolvent funeral insurers’ receiver and state insurance guaranty associations offer “no cogent reasons for why it would be unjust” for a Missouri federal court to correct a prejudgment interest amount in a $102,135,293.07 judgment rendered in a dispute regarding allegations over the mishandling of the insurers’ funds (Jo Ann Howard & Associates P.C., et al. v. J. Douglas Cassity, et al., No. 09-01252, E.D. Mo.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — Trucking companies sued the administrators of their self-insured employee benefit plans on Oct. 18 in a California federal court, alleging that the administrators negligently failed to obtain reinsurance coverage for the plans (A&I Transport, Inc., et al. v. KG Administrative Services, Inc., et al., No. 19-1992, C.D. Calif.).
ATLANTA — Parties in an insurance bad faith lawsuit recently asked an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel to determine whether a federal district court erred in granting an insurer’s summary judgment motion after determining that no genuine issue of material fact existed showing that the insurer acted in bad faith in its handling of an automobile insurance claim with a third party (Scott Martin v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Co., No. 19-11164, 11th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A debtor in a Sept. 27 memorandum of law requests that a New York federal bankruptcy court recognize a run-off insurer’s administration proceeding as a foreign main proceeding to stay U.S. creditors from pursuing actions against the insurer and to ensure administration of its affairs (In re: Stronghold Insurance Company Ltd., Chapter 15, No. 19-13096, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
NEW ORLEANS — An insured argues in an Oct. 1 appellant brief that an underlying lawsuit seeking to recover damages purportedly caused by a data breach of its credit card processing system triggered “personal and advertising injury” coverage under its commercial general liability insurance policy, asking the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that the insurer has no duty to defend (Landry's Inc. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, No. 19-20430, 5th Cir.).
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — No coverage is owed for underlying claims filed against an insured following a gas pipeline explosion because the policies’ professional liability exclusions and pollution exclusions bar coverage for the underlying claims, two insurers assert in a complaint filed Oct. 10 in Alabama federal court (Ohio Security Insurance Co., et al. v. Superior Land Designs, et al., No. 19-1656, N.D. Ala.).
PHILADELPHIA — Parties in an insurance bad faith lawsuit recently asked a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel to determine whether a federal district court erred in holding that an insurer cannot be held liable for acting in bad faith in refusing to defend a noninsured who was driving an insured vehicle at the time of an accident because the noninsured lacked standing to bring claims against the insurer (Louis Myers v. GEICO Casualty Co., No. 19-1108, 3rd Cir.).
TACOMA, Wash. — A Washington federal bankruptcy judge did not have jurisdiction to approve two settlements between Chapter 11 debtor Fraser’s Boiler Service Inc. and several asbestos liability insurers, nonsettling insurers argue in their Sept. 30 final brief on appeal in federal court (Fraser’s Boiler Service, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, et al, No. 19-35269, 9th Cir.).
FRESNO, Calif. — A disability insurer acted in bad faith and breached its contract in terminating a claimant’s long-term disability (LTD) benefits because the insurer’s termination was not reasonable and not based on reliable medical evidence, the claimant alleges in an Oct. 15 complaint filed in California federal court (Jennifer Sims v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 19-1460, E.D. Calif.).