LAKELAND, Fla. — A Florida school board recently asked a state appeals court to find that claims filed against it by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. related to reimbursement for damages State Farm paid for injuries sustained in a school bus accident are barred by sovereign immunity (Lee County School Board v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., et al., No. 2D17-4595M, and Safety National Casualty Corporation v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2D17-4899, Fla. App., 2nd Dist. [consolidated]).
NEW ORLEANS — A technology firm insured recently asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding in favor of a insurer in a dispute over directors and officers liability coverage for underlying claims that the insured failed to pay overtime and improperly categorized employees as "exempt" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (ADI WorldLink LLC v. RSUI Indemnity Company, No. 17-41050, 5th Cir.).
AUSTIN, Texas — An insured recently told the Texas Supreme Court that its lawsuit seeking recourse against its insurer pursuant to the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA) is important to the state’s jurisprudence because it invites the high court to explain how the principles of USAA Texas Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca apply when an insurer invokes appraisal after the onset of litigation (Barbara Technologies Corporation v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 17-0640, Texas Sup.).
MIAMI — In a Sept 27 opposition to an excess reinsurer’s motion to dismiss, an international health insurer argues that a Florida federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over the insurer’s breach of contract lawsuit (VIP Universal Medical Insurance Group Ltd. v. BF&M Life Insurance Company Ltd., et al., No. 17-24633, S.D. Fla.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In seeking leave to file an amended complaint to recover a $26 million arbitration award, a financial services company argues in a Sept. 17 reply brief that a District of Columbia federal judge did not previously issue a decision on the merits of its case because the judge held only that he lacked personal jurisdiction over reinsurers (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
NEW YORK — In a Sept. 13 motion for summary judgment, a reinsurer argues to a New York federal court that its cedent breached the reinsurance contract by failing to timely notify the reinsurer of an underlying dispute involving a trucking accident (Endurance Assurance Corp. v. Florists’ Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 16-09955, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN DIEGO — In a California federal court case over breached reinsurance agreements from fraudulent transfers, a reinsurer in a Sept. 21 summary judgment reply brief says an insurance broker’s former owners fail to present a genuine disputed material fact as to the reinsurer’s status as a creditor (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — In seeking to dismiss a New York federal court case alleging breach of policies by unlawful increase of premium costs to recoup costs associated with an acquisition, a life insurer argues on Sept. 21 that the plaintiffs’ claims do not arise out of specific business activities in New York (Derek Fan, et al. v. Phoenix Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-01288, S.D. N.Y.).
MADISON, Wis. — Plaintiffs on Sept. 10 moved for final approval of a settlement it reached with a long-term care insurer in a lawsuit alleging that the insurer categorically excluded coverage for all claims that were filed for stays at any assisted living facility in the state of Wisconsin, reporting that the settlement payments are subject to a $4.85 million classwide payment cap on benefit payments, expenses, attorney fees and contribution awards (Gwen B. DaLuge, et al. v. Continental Casualty Company, No. 15-00297, W.D. Wis.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A class action was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court on Sept. 21 alleging that an insurance holding company and its affiliates conducted a “deliberate, long-term scheme” to “bleed capital” from the holding company’s wholly owned insurance subsidiary upon which more than 1 million policyholders depend for long-term care insurance disability benefits (Richard F. Burkhart, et al. v. Genworth Financial Inc., et al., No. 2018-0691, Del. Chanc.).
SEATTLE — Whether a moisture- and heat-related roof collapse falls under an insurance policy’s coverage for decay is before a Washington state appeals court after parties wrapped up briefing June 4 (Feenix Parkside LLC v. Berkley North Pacific, et al., No. 77303 8 I, Wash. App., Div. 1).
ATLANTA — An insured recently asked the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding in favor of an executive and organization liability insurer in its lawsuit seeking coverage for an underlying criminal investigation conducted by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) (Crowley Maritime Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 18-10953, 11th Cir.).
RICHMOND, Va. — Insurers recently asked the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal’s court $62.7 million judgment in favor of insureds in a dispute over coverage for underlying product liability lawsuits involving contaminated heparin (Charter Oak Fire Insurance v. American Capital, 17-2015 and 17-2068, 4th Cir.).
DENVER — The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Sept. 26 in a case brought by a building company that seeks reimbursement from its insurer for a $350,000 settlement it paid to an electric utility company that sued the builder for damage to a cooling tower at the plant (MTI Inc. v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, No. 17-6206, 10th Cir.).
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A Florida insured on Sept. 5 sued his homeowners insurer in a Florida court, alleging that the insurer charged Floridians for hurricane insurance and then intentionally undervalued or denied legitimate insurance claims by using unlicensed adjusters and engineers (Lawrence Malysa v. Tower Hill Prime Insurance Co., et al., No. N/A., Fla. Cir., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Co.).
CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. — An insured on Sept. 14 filed objections to a magistrate’s report that recommended dismissal of his lawsuit alleging that he was wrongfully denied $141,274.50 in insurance proceeds for Superstorm Sandy damage to his Long Beach, N.Y., home, asserting the “legal impact” of the errors in the magistrate’s report and recommendation “go far beyond this case” (David Clutter v. William B. Long, et al., No. 17-4833, E.D. N.Y.).
SAN DIEGO — Arguing that there are triable issues of fact, the former owners of an insurance brokerage company in separate Sept. 14 briefs oppose a reinsurer’s request for summary judgment against them for payment of a $3.2 million judgment in a California federal court dispute over breached reinsurance agreements from fraudulent transfers (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — An out-of-network substance abuse services provider’s claims are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the provider fails to adequately plead its California unfair competition law (UCL) claim, an insurer tells a California federal judge in a reply Sept. 14 (Miriam Hamideh Ph.D., et al. v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-3044, C.D. Calif.).
SEATTLE — Whether a health insurance policy’s “medically necessary” language required coverage of a man’s proton beam therapy confronts the Washington Supreme Court after it recently received supplemental briefing (John Strauss, et al. v. Premera Blue Cross, No. 74600-6-I, Wash. Sup.).
NEW YORK — A plaintiff in a proposed class action on Sept. 7 opposed a life insurer’s motion to dismiss his New York federal court lawsuit alleging breach of policies by the unlawful increase of the premium costs to recoup costs associated with an acquisition (Derek Fan, et al. v. Phoenix Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-01288, S.D. N.Y.).