CHICAGO — Owners and operators of various bars, restaurants and taverns, including the Buffalo Wild Wings franchise, sued their property and casualty insurer in a federal court in Illinois on June 2 for its failure to provide coverage for their lost business income arising from the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and subsequent executive orders issued by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker.
LAKE CHARLES, La. — An insurer acted in bad faith and breached the terms of a homeowners insurance policy by failing to timely tender compensation to its insureds and undervalued the damages sustained for covered losses as a result of losses sustained by Hurricane Laura, the insureds allege in a complaint filed June 1 in Louisiana federal court.
CAMDEN, N.J. — A motion to dismiss filed by a reinsurer and former officers in a securities class action pending in New Jersey federal court must be denied because the complaint adequately shows that the defendants made false and misleading statements when they failed to disclose adverse historical loss results, the plaintiffs contend in a May 24 supplemental brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Bermuda reinsurance and insurance company’s “continuous and systematic contacts” with the United States allow the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to exercise personal jurisdiction over the reinsurer in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit seeking damages for the company’s alleged failure to make $934 million in withdrawal liability payments to a pension plan, the pension plan trustees argue in a May 26 opposition to the reinsurer’s renewed motion to dismiss.
DETROIT — A health and life insurer seeking indemnity for more than $950,000 under a medical excess reinsurance agreement contends in a May 27 opposition to a reinsurer’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay discovery that the motion to dismiss should be denied as the reinsurance agreement’s arbitration provision cannot be enforced and that the motion to stay discovery is futile as the reinsurer cannot succeed on its motion to dismiss.
LOS ANGELES — A claims administration company and an adjuster accused by four homebuilders of failing to repay more than $10 million in self-insurance retention (SIR) payments made as part of homebuilder protection (HBP) policies say in a brief filed May 24 in federal court in California that the suit should not be remanded because the builders’ claims against the adjuster are subject to Illinois law, which requires them to show that any alleged misrepresentations he made about the SIR provision in the policies were material.
TACOMA, Wash. — A condominium owners’ association says in a lawsuit filed May 20 in federal court in Washington that its insurer wrongfully denied its claim for hidden damage to sheathing and framework because it had a duty to investigate whether it was the result of weather and construction defects.
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A reinsurer’s motion to amend its answer to add a declaratory judgment counterclaim related to two additional reinsurance billings submitted by a nonprofit municipal insurer should be denied because the reinsurer had the opportunity to add the counterclaim to its amended answer but failed to do so, the nonprofit municipal insurer contends in a May 26 response to the reinsurer’s motion.
CHICAGO — An insurer on May 19 filed suit in an Illinois court, seeking a declaration that is has no duty to defend or indemnify McDonald’s and its franchisees against two underlying lawsuits alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), arguing that the underlying claims do not assert “bodily injury” or “property damage” that was caused by an “occurrence” nor do they allege “personal and advertising injury” under the policy.
PHILADELPHIA — A Philadelphia property owner on May 24 sued its insurer for breach of contract and bad faith in a Pennsylvania court, seeking more than $200,000 in property damage caused by looting and subsequent water damage.
ATLANTA — A district court correctly found that an insured restaurant chain’s claim for loss of business income caused by shutdown orders issued by state governors in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic is not covered because the decision is clearly supported by the insurance policy’s language and because the policy’s contamination exclusion bars coverage, an insurer says in a May 26 appellee brief filed in the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
HARRISBURG, Pa. — An insurer breached the terms of an automobile insurance policy and acted in bad faith under Pennsylvania law by offering to settle the insurer’s underinsured motorist (UIM) claim for an amount that was unfair and unreasonable, an insured alleges in a complaint filed May 26 in Pennsylvania federal court.
TAMPA, Fla. — A self-insured intergovernmental risk management association is appealing a Florida federal judge’s ruling that a reinsurer does not owe coverage for an underlying civil rights lawsuit filed against the association, according to the association’s May 24 notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
WILMINGTON, Del. — An insurer recently asked the Delaware Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s ruling that there is coverage under a 2015 insurance policy for underlying lawsuits seeking damages for the costs arising out of Rite Aid Corp.’s distribution and its pharmacies’ dispensing of opioids, challenging the lower court’s finding that some of the underlying economic losses sought against the insured by governmental entities “are arguably because of bodily injury” and the governmental entities’ lawsuits and similar opioid actions assert one occurrence.
NEW ORLEANS — Insureds on May 22 filed a notice in a Louisiana federal court indicating that they are appealing an April 23 ruling that granted a businessowners insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in their lawsuit seeking coverage for their alleged losses prompted by the coronavirus pandemic.
SCRANTON, Pa. — Dismissal of an insured’s claims in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit against its insurer for failure to pay business losses stemming from Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s business closure order as part of the state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is warranted because the insured failed to sufficiently plead any facts that would invoke “a reasonable expectation” of coverage for the claims he has made, the insurer argues in a May 10 motion to dismiss filed in Pennsylvania federal court.
DALLAS — Claims in a property owner’s state court lawsuit against a contractor over alleged construction defects that have caused cracks in the interior floor slab and affected the structural integrity of the building are not covered by the builder’s policies, the contractor’s insurer says in a declaratory judgment lawsuit filed in federal court in Texas on May 5.
CHICAGO — The owner of a hotel, restaurant and convention center on May 7 reiterated its argument asking the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s dismissal of its breach of contract and declaratory judgment lawsuit seeking coverage for its losses arising from the coronavirus pandemic, arguing that its interpretation of its “all-risk” insurance policy’s business income coverage is reasonable and, therefore, the insurer has failed to establish the “legal insufficiency” of its complaint.
NEW YORK — An insurer in a May 7 appellee brief asserts that New York law is settled on the meaning of “direct physical loss” and that the several pages an art gallery insured “devotes to cites from jurisdictions far and wide is nothing but an exercise in misdirection” and asks the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to affirm a lower federal court’s dismissal of the insured’s complaint for failing to assert facts establishing “direct physical loss of or physical damage to” its gallery.
TAMPA, Fla. — A reinsurer on May 12 filed a motion for attorney fees in Florida federal court, contending that a self-insured intergovernmental risk management association should be ordered to pay its attorney fees and costs of more than $300,000 incurred to defend itself against the association’s breach of contract suit because the association cannot show that the reinsurer acted in bad faith in making an offer of judgment in 2018 despite the reinsurer’s contention that no coverage was afforded for an underlying civil rights lawsuit.