MIAMI — An insured recently asked a Florida appeals court to reverse a lower court’s finding that she perpetrated a fraud on the court by providing materially false information in her affidavit in a water damage coverage dispute, arguing that the discrepancies between the affidavit and her live testimony “can be explained by her memory difficulties and by understanding that the date she discovered the loss is not the date of loss or the date of the weather event causing the loss” (Irma Perez v. Safepoint Insurance Company, No. 3D18-1588, Fla., App., 3rd Dist.).
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — An insurer of Chapter 11 debtors Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. and Hanson Permanente Cement Inc. says in an Aug. 28 adversary complaint in North Carolina federal bankruptcy court that it should be relieved of its duty to pay to defend asbestos personal injury claims because of the debtors’ breach of cooperation agreements (Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., et al., No. 19-03052, W.D. N.C. Bkcy.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Oct. 22 in a flood insurance coverage case in which a hotel and its insurer dispute whether the flooded portion of the hotel constitutes a “basement,” which affects the amount that can be recovered (Surfsand Resort LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-35607, 9th Cir.).
ATLANTA — A vehicle service contracts administrator argues in an Aug. 27 appellant brief to the Georgia Court of Appeals that a lower court erred in confirming a $462,971 arbitration award in favor of a car dealership and a reinsurer, while the car dealership and reinsurer argue in a cross-appeal filed the same day that the lower court failed to award attorney fees (Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al. v. Interstate National Dealer Services Inc., No. A20A0036, and Interstate National Dealer Services Inc. v. Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al., No. A20A0037, Ga. App.).
CINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal will consider, without hearing oral arguments, an insurer’s appeal of a district court’s refusal to enforce a judgment entered in favor of the insurer in an asbestos coverage dispute that has been pending for almost 14 years (Continental Casualty Co., et al. v. Indian Head Industries Inc., No. 18-2152, 6th Cir.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Home health aides ask a New York federal court in a Sept. 13 reply to strike a captive reinsurer’s motion to dismiss their lawsuit accusing the reinsurer and affiliates of a scheme to cheat the aides out of lost wages and benefits because the reinsurer should be required to post a $25 million bond before any pleading is accepted (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 FRANCISCO — Insureds argue in their Aug. 15 brief before a California appeals court that a lower court never reached a joint and several liability issue because the lower court properly found insufficient evidence to support a damages claim by a reinsurer and its related entities for amounts owed under a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Warwick California Corp., et al. v. Applied Underwriters Inc., et al., No. A155523, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 4).
BOSTON — An insurer in a Sept. 13 motion asks a Massachusetts federal court to compel reinsurers to produce documents and interrogatory responses relating to their allocation and billing of its own 2009 settlement with an insured in a separate matter (Certain London Market Company Reinsurers v. Lamorak Insurance Co., No. 18-10534, D. Mass., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38909).
DALLAS — Because insurance policies are not “unconscionable adhesion contracts” and an insured’s due process rights were not violated, an insurer argues in a Sept. 11 reply to a Texas federal court that it is entitled to summary judgment on a declaratory judgment claim concerning an increase in premium costs because it followed an assumption reinsurance agreement and another insurer’s rehabilitation plan (Don B. Chae v. American Fidelity Assurance Co., No. 19- 157, N.D. Texas).
ST. LOUIS — Following a $102,135,293.07 judgment in favor of insolvent funeral insurers’ receiver and state insurance guaranty associations in a dispute regarding allegations over the mishandling of the insurers’ funds, two banks in a Sept. 10 motion request an indicative ruling from a Missouri federal court stating that the court will correct a miscalculation of prejudgment interest if the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals grants leave to do so (Jo Ann Howard & Associates P.C., et al. v. J. Douglas Cassity, et al., No. 09-01252, E.D. Mo.).
NEW ORLEANS — A commercial trucker recently asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s dismissal of his lawsuit seeking damages from his commercial automobile liability insurer for his alleged permanent mental injuries that resulted from his involvement in two fatal accidents (Thomas Petty v. Great West Casualty Company, No. 18-11600, 5th Cir.).
RICHMOND, Va. — In a case scheduled for oral argument on Sept. 18, an appellant argues in the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a lower federal court erred in finding that a commercial automobile insurance policy’s workers’ compensation exclusion applied to bar coverage because the exclusion violates the West Virginia Code Section 336-31(a)’s omnibus clause, provisions of Section 33-6-31(h) and applicable state case law (United Financial Casualty Company v. Greg Allen Ball, et al., 18-1657, 4th Cir.).
MIAMI — In response to a federal flood insurer’s motion to compel discovery in a Hurricane Irma coverage dispute, the insured in an Aug. 27 response argues that the insurer’s motion is moot because it has already provided the requested documents without the need for judicial intervention (Island Club Condominium Inc. v. Wright National Flood Insurance Co., No. 18-10303, S.D. Fla.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insured recently asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of her automobile insurer, arguing that “justice requires reversal and remand” for a trier of fact to determine questions of fact (Lorene McCall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 18-16622, 9th Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — The Second District California Court of Appeal should affirm a trial court’s ruling that an insurer was entitled to rescind a policy issued to an insured seeking coverage for contamination of oil in a storage tank caused by an insured’s work, the insurer argues in an Aug. 9 reply brief (NRG Delta LLC v. Endurance American Specialty Insurance Co., No. B285909, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 5, 2019 CA App. Ct. BRIEFS LEXIS 3817).
LOS ANGELES — A primary and first-excess layer legal malpractice insurer on Sept. 6 sued another excess insurer in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking recovery of a portion of the $2.5 million it paid to settle an underlying lawsuit brought against their mutual law firm insured (Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, et al. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, No. 19-07730, C.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (SHIP) on Sept. 4 filed amended cross-claims and a third-party complaint, alleging a Ponzi-like scheme consisting of reinsurance companies and related investment management and servicing entities in which fraudulent misrepresentations were made to gain investment control and discretion over $320 million of the runoff insurer’s reserves (In re Platinum-Beechwood litigation, No. 18-6658; Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., No. 18-6658; Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management (NY) LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, Melanie L. Cyganowski v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. Beechwood Re Ltd., et al., and Senior Health Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. PB Investment Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 18-12018, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A former National Football League player seeking total and permanent (T&P) disability benefits under the NFL’s retirement plan claims in an Aug. 26 suit filed in California federal court that the plan abused its discretion by refusing to pay him T&P benefits (Charles Dimry v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, et al., No. 19-5360, N.D. Calif.)
BOSTON — A commercial general liability insurer on Aug. 19 argued to the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that another insurer’s argument that it is estopped from enforcing its policy terms because its notification of a coverage decision was untimely is a “red herring” and that the appeals court should affirm a lower federal court’s ruling that it has no duty to defend an apartment management company insured against an underlying property damage lawsuit (Clarendon National Insurance Company v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, No. 19-1212, 1st Cir.).
DALLAS — While an insurer says it is entitled to summary judgment on an insured’s declaratory judgment claim concerning the ability to raise premium costs because it followed an assumption reinsurance agreement and a rehabilitation plan involving another insurer, the insured on Aug. 28 asked a Texas federal court to deny the motion because there is a genuine dispute of material fact (Don B. Chae v. American Fidelity Assurance Co., No. 19- 157, N.D. Texas).