ATLANTA — A federal judge in Florida correctly entered summary judgment in its favor because the defense costs at issue fell under a different coverage agreement, a reinsurer asserts in its Aug. 19 appellant brief in a breach of contract dispute, urging the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to affirm the ruling that it does not owe reimbursement to a self-insured intergovernmental risk management association.
URBANA, Ill. — No coverage is afforded for water contamination and environmental contamination caused by the rupture of a gasoline pipeline by an insured who was completing work on a farm because a pollution exclusion contained in a commercial general liability policy and an umbrella policy applies as a bar to coverage, an insurer asserts in an Aug. 13 complaint filed in Illinois federal court.
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — An insured is not entitled to coverage for underlying asbestos bodily injury lawsuits because the underlying limits of the primary policies have not been exhausted, two umbrella liability insurers assert in an Aug. 9 complaint filed in Connecticut federal court.
ALBANY, N.Y. — Arguing that it is entitled to a new trial or altered or amended judgment, a reinsurer on Aug. 5 filed two notices of motions in a federal court in New York regarding a jury verdict that awarded $10,901,005 to an insurer in a dispute over defense costs paid for asbestos liabilities, citing in part a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision issued after the trial; the reinsurer also challenged a requested award of $8,444,834 in prejudgment interest.
NEW YORK — A panel’s combined ruling in favor of two reinsurers in asbestos billings and certificate disputes conflicts with prior decisions on the meaning of “covered” and “coverage” and on inconsistent reinsurance allocations, Utica Mutual Insurance Co. says in an Aug. 12 petition for rehearing en banc before the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
RICHMOND, Va. — A professional liability insurer on Aug. 3 asked the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a federal court’s finding that it has a duty to defend against an underlying class action alleging that a senior living facility and its owners breached their contractual duties to provide adequate staffing and personal care, arguing that the underlying complaint fails to assert damages because of an injury that was “caused by” a professional health care incident to trigger coverage.
BOSTON — A trial court erred in finding that an apartment building contractor had to terminate a subcontractor accused of fabricating defective windows and other modular components in order for a subcontractor’s insurer to indemnify the contractor as “it is difficult if not impossible to provide a practical justification to require termination AFTER the work is completed,” the contractor argues in its reply brief filed July 22 in the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
ROME, Ga. — No coverage is afforded for a suit alleging that an insured’s operations intentionally caused waterways and drinking water to become polluted because the policies’ total pollution exclusion bars coverage, an insurer asserts in an Aug. 1 complaint filed in Georgia federal court.
BALTIMORE — Two commercial general liability insurers on Aug. 4 filed suit in a Maryland federal court disputing coverage for underlying lawsuits brought against their engineering firm insured by victims of the June 24 partial collapse of a Surfside, Fla., condominium high-rise, alleging that numerous policy exclusions preclude coverage for damages arising from the insured’s rendering or failure to render professional services.
CHICAGO — Hospitality industry insured plaintiffs on Aug. 3 moved for an injunction of all pending and future state court class actions in which insureds of Society Insurance Co. seek business interruption protection coverage arising out of the coronavirus pandemic until proceedings in a multidistrict litigation are completed, arguing to a federal court in Illinois that an injunction “is necessary to prevent Society from attempting to conduct a reverse auction with state court class action plaintiffs to the detriment of the Plaintiffs in this MDL.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. government on Aug. 2 filed a petition for a panel rehearing of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ May 17 rejection of its appeal seeking to vacate a $24.5 million award for an insolvent insurer’s liquidator, challenging the court’s finding that it does not have a right to offset Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) obligations during the insolvency proceeding and that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ money judgment was proper.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Arguing that insurers are bound by what their insurance policy says and not what they wish it said, an insured in an Aug. 3 merits brief asks the Ohio Supreme Court to answer yes to a federal court’s certified question asking whether “the general presence in the community, or on surfaces at a premises, of the novel coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2” constitutes “direct physical loss or damage to property; or does the presence on a premises of a person infected with COVID-19 constitute direct physical loss or damage to property at that premises?”
ATLANTA — A church insured on July 30 withdrew its appeal in the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals challenging a Georgia federal court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of its insurer on a bad faith claim and a jury verdict in favor of the insurer on a breach of contract claim in a coverage dispute arising from Hurricane Matthew water damage.
PASADENA, Calif. — In their July 26 appellants’ brief before the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals challenging the dismissal of their allegations that the California insurance commissioner and his deputies violated their constitutional rights and acted in bad faith by filing a conservatorship against a workers’ compensation insurer, a different insurer and its subsidiary argue that the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction and abstention under Younger v. Harris do not apply.
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — An insurer’s new lawsuit over billing for asbestos coverage should be reassigned because it is “only tangentially related” to a prior case handled by the judge to which it is currently assigned and “inextricably” related to another case over which a different judge presided, a reinsurer asserts in a July 30 letter motion to a federal court in New York.
WILMINGTON, Del. — Private equity firms insureds and one of their insurers on July 30 filed a stipulation seeking to dismiss with prejudice the insurer from the insureds’ lawsuit seeking coverage for their $120 million settlement with the bankruptcy estate of a retail fashion holding company they acquired.
ALLENTOWN, Pa. — One month after a federal judge in Pennsylvania held that although Boscov's Department Store Inc.’s business has undoubtedly been impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, its “alleged losses bear no causal connection to the physical condition of its properties,” Boscov’s on July 29 filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals challenging the no coverage ruling in its breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit against its insurer.
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — In July 30 replies to supplemental briefs, a railroad company and reinsurer Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund (IMSIF) spar about whether there is subject matter jurisdiction for claims in federal court in Illinois; the railroad seeks declarations and injunctive relief over the reinsurer’s pursuit of reimbursement as subrogee for mine subsidence claims that IMSIF paid on behalf of subrogor property owners.
SAN FRANCISCO — Expediting an appeal contesting a California federal judge’s dismissal of allegations that state regulators abused their authority by actions including obtaining a conservatorship against a workers’ compensation insurance carrier is not warranted and would be prejudicial, the regulators tell the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in their July 27 opposition to a motion to expedite.
NEWARK, N.J. — In a July 14 answer to an amended complaint filed in New Jersey federal court about environmental investigation and remediation at an insured property, an insurer asserts numerous affirmative defenses including that the insured “is barred from bringing a claim against the defendant by virtue of being made whole through the voluntary settlement of a previous matter.”