SEATTLE — Insureds recently asked a Washington appeals court to reverse a lower court’s remittitur of the $1,345,317.24 that a jury awarded for an insurer’s violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and remand for entry of a judgment on the full jury verdict with interest tolling from the date of the initial judgment (Jeff McNabb & Elaine McNabb v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 77832-3, Wash. App., Div. 1).
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — An insurer asked a Missouri appeals court to reverse a lower court’s ruling that denied its motion to intervene and entered a final judgment confirming a $5,998,027 arbitration award in favor of a claimant who was involved with a motor vehicle accident with its insured (Jennifer Britt v. Jeremy Otto & American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., WD81830, Mo., App., Western Div.).
ATLANTA — An insured claims in a Feb. 13 complaint filed in Georgia federal court that its insurer breached its contract in denying coverage under a pollution liability policy for clean-up costs and damages incurred as a result of the release of gasoline from one of the insured’s pipelines (Colonial Pipeline Co. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., No. 19-762, N.D. Ga.).
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — In a reinsurance coverage dispute over payment for mine subsidence damages, a railroad company argues in a Feb. 20 brief that an Illinois federal court should grant it summary judgment on alter-ego and de facto merger claims (Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 17-3199, C.D. Ill.).
LINCOLN, Neb. — In a dispute over a promissory note executed pursuant to a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), the promissory note maker on Feb. 20 filed an objection to a Nebraska magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny class certification and asks that its proposed New Jersey class be certified (Applied Underwriters Inc. v. Top’s Personnel Inc., No. 15-90, D. Neb.).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — In a dispute over an alleged reinsurance scheme, investment companies assert in Feb. 19 reply briefs to a Kansas federal court that an investor’s claims for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and unjust enrichment should be dismissed (Albert Ogles v. Security Benefit Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-02265, D. Kan.).
OMAHA, Neb. — A federally reinsured crop insurer says in a Feb. 18 reply brief that a Nebraska federal judge was correct to find that a former employee’s noncompete provision in an assignment, nonsolicitation and nondisclosure agreement was enforceable under Nebraska law (Farm Credit Services of America FLCA v. Kathy Mens, No. 19-14, D. Neb.).
BOSTON — An insurance company recently asked the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to find that a lower court erred when it held that the conduct of a class of plaintiffs in an underlying action comprised an “occurrence” that then obligated the insurer to defend a utility company that was the defendant in that underlying case (Zurich American Insurance Company v. Electricity Maine LLC, et al., No. 18-1968, 1st Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — Two banks assert in a Feb. 14 reply brief that a Missouri federal court should grant their motion for partial judgment on claims for certain alleged categories of damages in a dispute filed by a special deputy receiver and state insurance guaranty associations regarding allegations over the mishandling of insolvent funeral insurers’ funds (Jo Ann Howard & Associates P.C., et al. v. J. Douglas Cassity, et al., No. 09-01252, E.D. Mo.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a District of Columbia federal court dispute over a $26 million arbitration award, reinsurers assert in a Feb. 13 brief that their motion to dismiss a financial service company’s amended complaint is not an improper “third bite at the apple” despite concerning issues raised in their prior opposition to a motion for leave to amend (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
NEW YORK — In their fraud and conspiracy lawsuit, liquidators for two hedge funds tell a New York federal court in a Feb. 11 brief that they have asserted specific allegations to withstand motions to dismiss their amended complaint claiming that funds with a net asset value of nearly $1 billion turned out not only to be insolvent but also to have liabilities between $400 million and $800 million (Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
SALT LAKE CITY — No coverage is owed to an insured for an underlying claim alleging that the insured’s installation of attic insulation caused mold to develop in attics of condominium buildings because the policy’s fungi or bacteria exclusion clearly precludes coverage, the insurer says in a Feb. 7 complaint filed in Utah federal court (Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Green Property Solutions LLC, et al., No. 19-100, C.D. Utah).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Florida insureds “should not be rewarded for racing to the courthouse to commence litigation in lieu of participating in appraisal,” an insurer argues to a Florida appeals court in a Hurricane Irma coverage dispute in an effort to allow it to pursue its injunctive relief counterclaim or, in the alternative, specific performance of its right to compel appraisal and its concomitant right to repair (People’s Trust Insurance Company v. Parvin Nowroozpour, et al., No. 4D18-2810, Fla. App., 4th Dist.).
MIAMI — A homeowners insurer recently asked a Florida appeals court to reverse a lower court’s ruling in favor of its insured in a Hurricane Wilma dispute, arguing that the lower court erred in compelling appraisal, denying its motion to vacate the appraisal award and granting summary judgment “predicated on an appraisal award that should never have existed” (Gulfstream Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. David Coley, No. 3D18-0476, Fla. App., 3rd Dist.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Whether a homeowners insurance policy’s personal injury provision covers the discharge of a firearm after a robbery attempt turns on whether the parties’ portrayal of the resulting injuries as willful or accidental and confronts a California appeals court (CSAA Insurance Exchange, et al. v. Oscar Herrera, No. A153429, Calif. App., 1st Dist.).
ATLANTA — An insurer on Dec. 31 filed a brief in the Georgia Court of Appeals contending that it should set aside a lower court’s judgment in favor of a property owner because loss of value flowing from actual environmental contamination is not covered by a title insurance policy (Old Republic National Title Insurance Company v. RM Kids LLC, No. A19A0971, Ga. App.).
OMAHA, Neb. — A former employee for a federally reinsured crop insurer tells a Nebraska federal judge in a Feb. 8 opposition brief that an injunction for alleged breach of an employment agreement is not warranted because a noncompete agreement is overbroad and unenforceable (Farm Credit Services of America FLCA v. Kathy Mens, No. 19-14, D. Neb.).
TULSA, Okla. — In a lawsuit over alleged disparagement to a self-insurance products distributor during the promotion of a competitor’s products to school districts, an insurance agency and agent in a Feb. 8 motion ask an Oklahoma federal court to compel the trustees of Oklahoma School Risk Management Trust (OSRMT) to produce certain documents (The Sandner Group – Alternative Risk Solutions Inc. v. BancFirst Insurance Services Inc., et al., No. 18-0265, N.D. Okla.).
NAPLES, Fla. — A Collier County, Fla., condominium association on Feb. 8 sued its insurer in a Florida court for breach of contract and sought a declaration as to coverage for its property damage caused by Hurricane Irma, contending that the property remains in an “unfinished and damaged” condition as a result of the insurer’s refusal to provide it full compensation for its damages (Waterford Condominium Association Of Collier County, Inc. v. Empire Indemnity Insurance Company, No. 18-3753, Fla. Cir., Collier Co.).
MIAMI — In a Feb. 11 notice of removal, an insurer maintains that a Florida federal court has jurisdiction to decide a water damage coverage dispute because the insured’s complaint, seeking more than $80,000 in additional damages, exceeds the federal jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement (Sushi Garage LLC v. Greenwich Insurance Co., No. 19-20548, S.D. Fla.).