ST. LOUIS — A beneficiary to preneed cemetery trust argues on April 5 to a Missouri federal judge that the special deputy receiver (SDR) for three insolvent insurers does not establish that a merchandise and services trust has belonged to the estate from the beginning of the receivership proceeding while a trustee on the same day did not dispute the SDR (Winner Road Properties LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C., No. 16-1395, E.D. Mo.).
HELENA, Mont. — A workers’ compensation insurer’s discussions with its insureds did not create a duty to prevent an employee’s exposure to asbestos, a W.R. Grace & Co. insurer and its amicus curiae tell the Montana Supreme Court in March 21 briefs (Maryland Casualty Co. v. The Asbestos Claims Court, et al., No. OP 19-0051, Mont. Sup.).
CHICAGO — An insurance company on Jan. 22 filed a brief in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals contending that it does not owe coverage to Emmis Communications Corp. because the policy the insurer issued “unambiguously excludes coverage” for litigation related to Emmis’ attempt to make the company privately held (Emmis Communications Corporation v. Illinois National Insurance Company, No. 18-3392, 7th Cir.).
RICHMOND, Va. — An insured recently asked the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a federal court’s finding that an alleged advertising injury regarding its use of a trademark is substantially the same over time without any meaningful interruption and, therefore, is not covered under its businessowners liability and commercial umbrella insurance policies (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Beach Mart, Inc., 18-1285, 4th Cir.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — Employers on April 3 sought dismissal of certain claims in a New York federal court class action over an alleged captive insurance and reinsurance scheme in which home health aides allege 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.).
TRENTON, N.J. — An insurance and reinsurance broker argues in its March 29 reply brief to a New Jersey federal court that the filed-rate doctrine bars homeowners’ claims in a case concerning allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on a lender-placed insurance (LPI) scheme involving kickbacks, including reinsurance premiums (Edward Leo v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, et al., No. 17-05839, D. N.J.).
DETROIT — In a Michigan federal court lawsuit filed by a putative class of farmers against crop insurers and the federal agencies that reinsure them, the agencies argue in their April 1 summary judgment motion that they are not liable for the farmers’ loss of revenue protection in 2015 (Gregory Ackerman, et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., No. 17-11779, E.D. Mich.).
ST. LOUIS — In a breach of fiduciary duty case, the special deputy receiver (SDR) for three insolvent insurers in a March 27 brief tells a Missouri federal judge that a merchandise and services trust has belonged to the estate from the beginning of the receivership proceeding (Winner Road Properties LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C., No. 16-1395, E.D. Mo.).
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — An insurance fund and a railroad company on March 25 submitted their post-trial briefs to an Illinois federal court addressing alter-ego and de facto merger claims over payment for mine subsidence damages in their reinsurance coverage dispute (Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 17-3199, C.D. Ill.).
TRENTON, N.J. — A mortgage company argues in a March 25 reply brief to a New Jersey federal court that the filed-rate doctrine bars homeowners’ claims in a lawsuit concerning allegations of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on a lender-placed insurance (LPI) scheme involving the use of kickbacks, including reinsurance premiums (Edward Leo v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC of Delaware, et al., No. 17-05839, D. N.J.).
LOS ANGELES — An insurer on Jan. 11 filed a brief in a California appellate court contending that a mother and daughter have waived their right to appeal a lower court’s ruling on an arbitration award related to bad faith claim stemming from injuries they suffered in an automobile accident (Dionne Cooper, et al. v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al., No. B292019, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 2).
AUSTIN, Texas — Insurers and claimants recently filed briefs in the Texas Supreme Court, disputing whether an appeals court’s decision that held that the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of Texas (MLIIA) conferred direct standing on claimants to file an action under an insurance doctrine should be upheld (Truck Insurance Exchange & Team Health, Inc. v. Marcus Hernandez And Diane Hernandez, No. 18-0717, Texas Sup.).
ATLANTA — The Georgia Court of Appeals should affirm a trial court’s ruling that no coverage is owed for an underlying suit alleging bodily injuries caused by exposure to lead paint because the policy at issue includes a lead exclusion that clearly bars coverage, the insurer argues in a recently filed appellee brief (Mary Douglas, et al. v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., No, A19A0925, Ga. App., 2019 GA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 64).
LOS ANGELES — An insured involved in a long-standing asbestos insurance coverage dispute argues in a March 15 reply brief filed in the Second District California Court of Appeal that the appeals court should enforce its decision in a 2007 case and reverse a trial court’s finding that the insured’s attempt to recover more than $6.6 million in deductibles is time-barred (Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., et al., No. B278091, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 4, 2019 CA App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 643).
ATLANTA — A property owner on Jan. 21 challenged an insurer’s appeal asking the Georgia Court of Appeals to set aside a lower court’s $4.2 million jury award, calling the insurer’s “absurd argument” a “last-ditch attempt” to avoid paying its title insurance claim (Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. v. RM Kids LLC, No. A19A0971, Ga. App.).
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — An insurance company tells a Missouri appeals court in a Jan. 2 response brief that a trial court judge properly dismissed a woman’s breach of contract suit over the coverage provided by her uninsured motorist (UM) policy because the policy clearly states that coverage is limited to the state minimum of $25,000 and that the limits cannot be stacked to exceed that amount (Victoria Logan v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., No. WD81950, Mo. App., Western Dist.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. — An insurer on March 22 responded to insureds’ objections to a New York federal magistrate's recommendation that its motions for leave to amend its answer to include certain counterclaims, to compel and for sanctions be granted and the insureds’ motion to file a second amended complaint be denied, telling the federal court that the insureds’ arguments in their coverage dispute following Superstorm Sandy are “based on a variety of patent factual and legal errors” (Robert and Laura Toussie v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 15-5235, E.D. N.Y.).
TAMPA, Fla. — A Florida self-insured intergovernmental risk management association and a reinsurer on March 18 responded to their competing summary judgment motions in a breach of contract dispute filed in Florida federal court with regard to allegations that the reinsurer failed to reimburse a $750,000 settlement and defense costs in a civil rights action (Public Risk Management of Florida v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., No. 18-1449, M.D. Fla.).
ST. LOUIS — A Missouri federal court was presented with parties’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 4 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.).
ST. LOUIS — An insurer and a third-party claims administrator on Feb. 19 responded to an appeal in the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals filed by a woman who was denied insurance coverage for her stay at a nursing home, arguing that a district court’s decision granting their motion for summary judgment should be affirmed because the facility where she was a resident did not meet the requirements of her insurance policy (Leona Van Dusseldorp v. Continental Casualty Co., et al., No. 18-3257, 8th Cir.).