PASADENA, Calif. — An education group and an insurer recently submitted arguments in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, disputing whether a district court’s order holding that the insurer was not obligated to fund a settlement reached in underlying backdating litigation should be overturned (Apollo Education Group Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh Pa., No. 17-17293, 9th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — A company that conducted fracking operations on an insured’s facility has asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s dismissal of its allegations that a site pollution legal liability insurer committed breach of contract by seeking indemnity for the $12 million the insurer paid to the insured for environmental damage caused by a June 2014 explosion (Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Co., No. 17-20678 consolidated with No. 18-20239, 5th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a dispute over a $26 million arbitration award, reinsurers in a Jan. 23 motion seek to dismiss a financial service company’s amended complaint asserting breach of an implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment claims in a District of Columbia federal court (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8059).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A bank sued for its role as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurer argues in Jan. 22 reply briefs that a South Carolina federal court should exclude undisclosed expert and damages testimony, a liability expert and evidence related to government investigations (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
PHILADELPHIA — Homeowners argue in their Jan. 18 reply brief to the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a Pennsylvania federal judge erred in dismissing claims for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and unjust enrichment in their putative class action alleging a captive reinsurance scheme between banks and an affiliated reinsurer (Christopher Blake, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., No. 18-2368, 3rd Cir.).
ATLANTA — The Georgia Supreme Court should deny an insurer’s petition for writ of certiorari because the Georgia Court of Appeals correctly found that defense costs incurred as a result of underlying asbestos claims filed against the insured do not erode the policy limits of two of the insurer’s policies, the insured says in a Dec. 21 response to the insurer’s petition (National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., et al. v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc., et al., No. BC290354, Ga. Sup., 2018 GA S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 777).
ST. CROIX, Virgin Islands — In the last of a series of motions to dismiss a restaurant insured’s lawsuit over the adjustment of its claim for property damage and business interruption losses arising from looting after Hurricane Maria, an insurance agency in a Jan. 16 filing argues that the material allegations reveal there is no substantive conduct supporting any claims against it (The Doctor and the Professor LLC v. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, et al., No. 19-0004, D. V.I.).
ST. LOUIS — An elderly woman who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease tells the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a brief filed Jan. 2 that a federal judge in South Dakota erred when adopting a report and recommendation suggesting granting her insurance company’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that her long-term care policy did not require the assisted living center at which she was treated to be licensed (Leona Van Dusseldorp v. Continental Casualty Co., et al., No. 18-3257, 8th Cir.).
HONOLULU — After a second amended complaint alleging unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the placement of insurance through “illegal kickback or captive reinsurance arrangements” was dismissed in part, a homeowner, on behalf of herself and others, on Jan. 15 filed a third amended complaint in a Hawaii federal court (Julia Wieck v. CIT Bank, N.A., et al., No. 16-00596, D. Hawaii).
LINCOLN, Neb. — A note holder to a promissory note executed pursuant to a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) in a Jan. 11 filing opposes a request in Nebraska federal court for class certification of a nationwide class of employers who purchased unlawful workers’ compensation insurance programs and signed related promissory notes because the counterclaims are not typical of a class (Applied Underwriters Inc. v. Top’s Personnel Inc., No. 15-90, D. Neb.).
RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court is set to decide whether a medical malpractice insurer should have defended against liability when the insured left the country, or whether its insured’s failure to communicate prevented it from mounting a defense in his shoes (Claudia M. Mora, et al. v. Lancet Indemnity Risk Retention Group Inc., No. 18-1566, 4th Cir.).
ATLANTA — Two insureds are asking the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s ruling and find that their rot coverage claim was wrongly dismissed because the defendants did not move for its dismissal. They also contend that the lower court committed “legal error” by denying their motion for reconsideration (The S.O. Beach Corp., et al. v. Great American Insurance Company of New York, No. 18-11967, 11th Cir.).
CINCINNATI — The leaser of a tunnel-boring machine that malfunctioned during a project and an insurer recently submitted arguments in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals over whether a decision holding that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the company in an international arbitration should be overturned (Maxum Indemnity Co. v. Robbins Co., 18-3776, 6th Cir.).
NEW YORK — An investor on Jan. 11 joined other motions seeking to dismiss a fraud and conspiracy lawsuit filed in a New York federal court by the liquidators for two hedge funds concerning allegations that the funds with a net asset value of nearly $1 billion turned out not only to be insolvent but also to have liabilities between $400 million and $800 million (Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
BALTIMORE — Underwriters subscribing to a facultative reinsurance certificate in a Jan. 11 filing oppose a request to compel arbitration or dismiss their Maryland federal court lawsuit seeking a declaration that a reinsurance contract is void ab initio based on insurers’ failure to disclose certain information in their application (Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, subscribing to the facultative reinsurance certificate 2017100003409 v. American Casualty Company of Reading, Pa., et al., No. 18-02972, D. Md.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a dispute with Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar II on who is responsible for payment to insureds of workers’ compensation plans that become insolvent, the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) argues in a Jan. 8 reply brief to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a lower court erred in dismissing claims based on preemption grounds and based on the government’s failure to timely file proofs of claims (California Insurance Guarantee Association v. Alex Azar II, et al., Nos. 17-56526 & 17-56528, 9th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A Walt Disney Co. insurer recently asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling that granted the insured’s motion to compel arbitration in a coverage dispute stemming from "pink slime" defamation claims against Disney’s subsidiary (The Walt Disney Co. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., No. 17-56840, 9th Cir.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Four insurers standing in the shoes of their Butte County, Calif., insureds filed one of four lawsuits in a California Superior Court on Dec. 21, alleging that PG&E Corp. and/or Pacific Gas & Electric Co.’s “well-documented disregard for safety regulations and risk management practices” and “blind eye towards the use of effective maintenance and inspection practices for their facilities and equipment” triggered various factors that caused and/or contributed to causing the “most destructive and deadly wildfire California has ever experienced” (United Services Automobile Association, et al. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., No. 34-2018-00247013, Calif. Super., Sacramento Co.).
ST. LOUIS — Banks in a Jan. 2 motion seek to exclude an expert witness from offering rebuttal damages opinions in a Missouri federal court case filed by a special deputy receiver and state insurance guaranty associations over the mishandling of funds belonging to insolvent funeral insurers (Jo Ann Howard & Associates P.C., et al. v. J. Douglas Cassity, et al., No. 09-01252, E.D. Mo.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a dispute over a $26 million arbitration award, a financial services company argues in a Dec. 17 brief that reinsurers provide no basis for a District of Columbia federal judge to reconsider his ruling allowing claims against the reinsurers for breach of an implied-in-fact contract, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment to be added (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).