RICHMOND, Va. — A cybersecurity provider insured recently asked the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that a commercial general liability insurer has no duty to defend it against underlying personal injury claims arising from a credit card breach involving hotel customers, contending that the lower court “incorrectly applied Florida insurance coverage law” (St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Rosen Millennium Inc., No. 18-14427, 4th Cir.).
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — In a reinsurance coverage dispute in Illinois federal court over payment for mine subsidence damages, an insurance fund in a March 6 brief argues that a railroad company’s motion for judgment on alter-ego and de facto merger claims should be denied based on evidence and testimony presented at trial (Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 17-3199, C.D. Ill.).
LINCOLN, Neb. — A workers’ compensation insurer on March 6 requested that a Nebraska federal court adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation denying class certification in a dispute over a promissory note executed pursuant to a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA) (Applied Underwriters Inc. v. Top’s Personnel Inc., No. 15-90, D. Neb.).
TAMPA, Fla. — In a breach of contract dispute, a Florida self-insured intergovernmental risk management association and a reinsurer filed competing motions for summary judgment on March 4 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.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A financial service company argues in a March 1 opposition brief in a District of Columbia federal court that reinsurers should be denied their request to dismiss or compel arbitration of its dispute over a $26 million arbitration award because the reinsurers fail to show that its amended complaint fails to state claims against them (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
SEATTLE — Parties in an insurance bad faith lawsuit recently asked the Washington Supreme Court to determine whether an insurance company’s claims adjuster owes any duty of good faith to an insured (Moun Keodalah, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., et al., No. 95867-0, Wash. Sup.).
RICHMOND, Va. — An insurance company is asking the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to rule that Amazon Inc. is liable for damages it paid to an insured after a product sold on Amazon.com by a third party caught fire and burned the purchaser’s house (Erie Insurance v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., No. 18-1198, 4th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — Insureds on Feb. 12 asked a Louisiana federal judge reconsider her finding that their two proofs of loss for flood damage failed to comply with the requirements of their standard flood insurance policy (SFIP) (William T. Clark, III, et al. v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company, No 18-4852, E.D. La.).
AUSTIN, Texas — Property owners who asserted claims over defects in their new home and an insurer recently submitted arguments with the Texas Supreme Court, disputing whether a trial court’s decision that a home warranty did not provide for arbitration of class action claims should be upheld (Nathan Robinson, et al. v. Home Owners Management Enterprises, Inc., No. 18-0504, Texas Sup.).
SEATTLE — Insureds recently asked a Washington appeals court to reverse a lower court’s remittitur of the $1,345,317.24 that a jury awarded for an insurer’s violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and remand for entry of a judgment on the full jury verdict with interest tolling from the date of the initial judgment (Jeff McNabb & Elaine McNabb v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 77832-3, Wash. App., Div. 1).
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — An insurer asked a Missouri appeals court to reverse a lower court’s ruling that denied its motion to intervene and entered a final judgment confirming a $5,998,027 arbitration award in favor of a claimant who was involved with a motor vehicle accident with its insured (Jennifer Britt v. Jeremy Otto & American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I., WD81830, Mo., App., Western Div.).
ATLANTA — An insured claims in a Feb. 13 complaint filed in Georgia federal court that its insurer breached its contract in denying coverage under a pollution liability policy for clean-up costs and damages incurred as a result of the release of gasoline from one of the insured’s pipelines (Colonial Pipeline Co. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Co., No. 19-762, N.D. Ga.).
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — In a reinsurance coverage dispute over payment for mine subsidence damages, a railroad company argues in a Feb. 20 brief that an Illinois federal court should grant it summary judgment on alter-ego and de facto merger claims (Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. 17-3199, C.D. Ill.).
LINCOLN, Neb. — In a dispute over a promissory note executed pursuant to a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), the promissory note maker on Feb. 20 filed an objection to a Nebraska magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny class certification and asks that its proposed New Jersey class be certified (Applied Underwriters Inc. v. Top’s Personnel Inc., No. 15-90, D. Neb.).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — In a dispute over an alleged reinsurance scheme, investment companies assert in Feb. 19 reply briefs to a Kansas federal court that an investor’s claims for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and unjust enrichment should be dismissed (Albert Ogles v. Security Benefit Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-02265, D. Kan.).
OMAHA, Neb. — A federally reinsured crop insurer says in a Feb. 18 reply brief that a Nebraska federal judge was correct to find that a former employee’s noncompete provision in an assignment, nonsolicitation and nondisclosure agreement was enforceable under Nebraska law (Farm Credit Services of America FLCA v. Kathy Mens, No. 19-14, D. Neb.).
BOSTON — An insurance company recently asked the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to find that a lower court erred when it held that the conduct of a class of plaintiffs in an underlying action comprised an “occurrence” that then obligated the insurer to defend a utility company that was the defendant in that underlying case (Zurich American Insurance Company v. Electricity Maine LLC, et al., No. 18-1968, 1st Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — Two banks assert in a Feb. 14 reply brief that a Missouri federal court should grant their motion for partial judgment on claims for certain alleged categories of damages 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.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a District of Columbia federal court dispute over a $26 million arbitration award, reinsurers assert in a Feb. 13 brief that their motion to dismiss a financial service company’s amended complaint is not an improper “third bite at the apple” despite concerning issues raised in their prior opposition to a motion for leave to amend (Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, et al., No. 17-01451, D. D.C.).
NEW YORK — In their fraud and conspiracy lawsuit, liquidators for two hedge funds tell a New York federal court in a Feb. 11 brief that they have asserted specific allegations to withstand motions to dismiss their amended complaint claiming that 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.).