MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Dec. 11 in an insurance dispute where an insurer sought a declaration that it did not owe a duty to defend a medical supply company in an underlying lawsuit for trademark infringement based on an exclusion in the commercial general liability policy at issue (West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. Ixthus Medical Supply Inc., et al., No. 2017AP909, Wis. Sup.).
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — A federal flood insurer on Nov. 13 answered a Florida insured’s federal complaint alleging that it failed to adequately compensate him for his structural building damage caused by Hurricane Irma (Keith Chatman v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company, No. 18-01204, M.D. Fla.).
MIAMI — A trial court correctly determined that a policy’s total pollution exclusion bars coverage for underlying claims alleged against a fire protection systems contractor because the fire suppression foam that was released in an air hangar is clearly a pollutant under the terms of the policy at issue, the insurer argues in a recent appellee brief filed in the Third District Florida Court of Appeal (Advanced Systems Inc. v. Gotham Insurance Co., No. 3D18-1744, Fla. App., 3rd Dist.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In letter briefs filed Nov. 6 at the direction of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Yahoo! Inc. and its commercial general liability (CGL) insurer debate the impact of an August 2017 Ninth Circuit ruling on the present appeal pertaining to insurance coverage for claims brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 17-16452, 9th Cir.).
BOSTON — The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should reverse a district court’s ruling in favor of a disability plan because the plan was not prejudiced by a 47-day delay in the filing of the disability claimant’s appeal, the claimant argues in a Nov. 28 appellant brief (Theresa Fortier v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co., No. 18-1752, 1st Cir.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Home health aides filed a class action complaint in a New York federal court on Nov. 27 against their employers and a reinsurer of their employee benefit plan, alleging 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.).
SAN DIEGO — In a dispute over a $3.2 million judgment, a principal to an insurance services company argues to a California federal court in a Nov. 21 brief that a reinsurer offers no evidence on its claim of a fraudulent transfer, so seizure of her home or proceeds from the sale of it should be denied (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — In a Nov. 14 reply brief to its summary judgment motion and opposition brief to a partial summary judgment motion, a reinsurer tells a New York federal court that an insurer was required to report a claim in 2010 but instead provided notice six years too late (Endurance Assurance Corp. v. Florists’ Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-09955, S.D. N.Y.).
NEW YORK — A reinsurer and its entities argue in a Nov. 5 brief that a New York federal court should dismiss a run-off insurer’s tort and quasi-contract claims because the case over the alleged mismanagement and misuse of $320 million is one for breach of contract (Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-06658, S.D. N.Y.).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — An insurer on Nov. 6 answered an insured’s assignee’s breach of contract and declaratory judgment complaint seeking coverage for an underlying $60,413,112 consent judgment entered against the insured in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violation dispute, asserting six affirmative defenses (Jacob Horn, et al. v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., No. 18-80762, S.D. Fla.).
HARTFORD, Conn. — In a Nov. 21 brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court, an insured seeking coverage for underlying asbestos and silica claims objects to the Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association’s application to file an amicus curiae brief, arguing that rejection of the application is warranted because there is significant overlap between the amicus and the insurers involved in the coverage dispute (R.T. Vanderbilt Co. Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., et al., Nos. SC 20000, SC20001, SC20003, Conn. Sup.).
ST. LOUIS — An insurer and a mortgage company recently submitted arguments to the Missouri Court of Appeals, disputing whether a trial court’s ruling that the mortgage company was not entitled to coverage related to an underlying lawsuit because it did not timely assert that its insurance claims should be affirmed (Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. v. Underwriters At Lloyd's London, No. ED106566, Mo. App.).
SAN FRANCISCO —Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar II argues in a Nov. 16 brief to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), as a primary plan, is responsible for making payment to insureds of workers’ compensation plans that become insolvent (California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Alex Azar II, et al., Nos. 17-56526 & 17-56528, 9th Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — The special deputy receiver for three insolvent insurers argues in a Nov. 19 reply to a Missouri federal court that responses to its motion to abstain or dismiss a cross-claim in a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit ignore the effect of a liquidation order (Winner Road Properties LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C., No. 16-1395, E.D. Mo.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — An excess health care excess liability insurer on Nov. 14 filed suit in the Delaware Superior Court seeking a declaration that it has no duty to indemnify its insureds for any part of a $73.21 million verdict recently rendered against its insured’s affiliate in an underlying medical malpractice lawsuit (Steadfast Insurance Company v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., No. No. N18C-11-127, Del. Super.).
CHICAGO — An insured recently replied to an insurer’s response in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, reiterating its argument seeking reversal of a federal judge's ruling in favor of the insurer on the applicability of the sudden and accidental exception to the pollution exclusion (Varlen Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-3212, 7th Cir.).
OKLAHOMA CITY — An insured and its insurer on Nov. 9 filed a joint motion for an agreed protective order in an Oklahoma federal court, seeking protection for document production that may include confidential information in a coverage dispute over earthquake damage (VTT Management Inc v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 17-767, W.D. Okla.).
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — An insurer alleges in a Nov. 8 complaint filed in a Florida federal court that it has no duty to defend or indemnify a contractor against defects allegations in a condominium development because the policy does not provide coverage for new construction (Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. WCI Communities Inc., No. 18-62716, S.D. Fla.).
FLORENCE, S.C. — In a Nov. 8 complaint, an insurer seeks a declaration from a South Carolina federal court that it has no duty to defend or indemnify contractors against defects allegations in a residential development because no “property damage” occurred during the policy period (Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. Carlos Castro, et al., No. 18-03026, D. S.C.).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — In a breach of contract and bad faith case based on the denial of disability benefits, a reinsurer argues to an Alabama federal court in its Nov. 6 reply brief in further support of a motion to dismiss that no contract existed between it and an insured (Horace R. Theriot Jr. v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-688, M.D. Ala.).