SAN FRANCISCO — Parties on June 10 will present oral arguments to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a case challenging a ruling that an insurer had no duty to defend its insureds, but that the insurer was not entitled to recover funds it already spent on its insureds’ defense (Nautilus Insurance Co. v. Access Medical LLC., et al., Nos. 17-16265, 17-16272, 17-16273, 9th Cir.).
MIAMI — A homeowners insurer recently asked a Florida appeals court to reverse a lower court’s ruling that dismissed with prejudice its request for mandatory temporary injunctive relief in a dispute arising from property damage, arguing that injunctive relief or, in the alternative, specific performance to compel the right to repair, is an appropriate remedy (People's Trust Insurance Company v. Kimberly Brown, et al., No. 3D18-2071, Fla. App., 3rd Dist.).
RICHMOND, Va. — Insureds recently asked the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that an excess insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify them against an underlying lawsuit seeking recovery for the government's alleged injuries for false claims for Medicaid reimbursements, contending that the lower court applied the wrong precedent in reaching its decision (Affinity Living Group, LLC, et al. v. StarStone Specialty Insurance Company, et al., No. 18-2376, 4th Cir.).
HELENA, Mont. — The court should reject a plaintiff’s “distorted” and backward-working attempt at creating liability on behalf of a workers’ compensation insurer for asbestos exposures and instead adopt sound analytical framework from the Restatement of Torts, an insurer tells the Montana Supreme Court in a May 3 reply brief (Maryland Casualty Co. v. The Asbestos Claims Court, et al., No. OP 19-0051, Mont. Sup.).
OMAHA, Neb. — In a breach of contract dispute, a reinsurer and its subsidiaries, which are part of workers’ compensation program involving a reinsurance participation agreement (RPA), argue in a May 15 filing in Nebraska federal court that investment companies waived their right to arbitrate claims and that the reinsurer and subsidiaries have no duty to arbitrate (Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company Inc. v. Ramesh Pitamber & Kusum Pitamber, et al., No. 17-61, D. Neb.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — In a May 14 reply in support of a stay to arbitration over lead paint losses pending an appeal, a reinsurer argues to a Pennsylvania federal judge that an insurer’s irreparable harm and public interest arguments have no merit (Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., No. 18-mc-653 c/w No. 18-mc-656, M.D. Pa.).
PITTSBURGH — An insured seeking coverage for pollution costs and damages caused by a gas well that spewed drilling fluid and fracking materials above the surface of the ground claims in a May 15 complaint filed in Pennsylvania state court that its insurers breached their contract and acted in bad faith in denying coverage for the more than $40 million in damages incurred by the insured (CNX Gas Co. LLC v. Lloyd’s of London, et al., No. GD-19-007029, Pa. Comm. Pls., Allegheny Co.).
BEAUMONT, Texas — An insurer argues in a May 13 motion for summary judgment filed in Texas federal court that it is entitled to reimbursement from the manufacturers of a fracking pump unit for more than $15 million in costs paid on behalf of its insured for damages incurred after the fracking unit malfunctioned and caused a fire at the well site (AIG Europe Ltd. v. Caterpillar Inc. and Dragon Products LLC, No. 17-319, E.D. Texas).
CAMDEN, N.J. — In separate May 6 opposition briefs, an institutional investor and a pension trust argue that a New Jersey federal court should deny requests to consolidate related securities class actions against a reinsurer and former executive officers regarding allegations of misrepresentation in underwriting and risk management techniques and a reinsurance portfolio’s risk (Michael Wigglesworth v. Maiden Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 19-05296, D. N.J.).
RALEIGH, N.C. — A North Carolina reinsurance facility argues in a March 26 brief to the state’s appellate court that a trial court erred in remanding its denial of reimbursement to a motor vehicle insurer for an $11 million bad faith settlement because the insurer’s “short-lived, ill-advised 1-800 claims reporting procedure directly created the conditions for that bad faith judgment” (The North Carolina Reinsurance Facility v. Mike Causey, et al., No. COA 18-1303, N.C. App.).
LOS ANGELES — A disability claimant’s suit seeking benefits under an individual disability income policy and alleging claims for breach of contract and bad faith must be removed to California federal court because the amount in controversy exceeds the federal jurisdictional minimum of $75,000, the insurer maintains in a May 14 notice of removal (Julie Borba, M.D. v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-4172, C.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — A defendant argues in a May 10 motion that a New York federal court should dismiss two hedge funds’ liquidators’ second amended complaint (SAC) with regard to allegations in connection “with one of the most spectacular hedge fund collapses” (Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
CONCORD, N.H. — Reinsurers argue in a May 10 reply brief that a New Hampshire federal court does not have exclusive jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to decide a breach of contract dispute over $22 million in outstanding reinsurance billings (United States Fire Insurance Co., et al. v. Equitas Insurance Ltd., et al., No. 18-01205, D. N.H.).
BALTIMORE — No coverage is owed for injuries sustained as a result of exposure to lead paint after June 13, 1999, because a lead paint exclusion added to insureds’ personal umbrella policy on June 13, 1999, bars coverage for lead paint exposure claims, an insurer says in a May 10 complaint filed in Maryland federal court (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Asia Powe, et al., No. 19-1376, D. Md.).
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — An insured’s second amended complaint in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit fails to cure the pleading deficiencies that led to the dismissal of her first amended complaint, insurers argue in an April 5 motion to dismiss filed in New Mexico federal court (Yvonne Apodaca v. Young America Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-399, D. N.M.).
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A restoration company recently asked the Florida Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s dismissal of its lawsuit against an insurer alleging that it underpaid a $20,305.74 bill for its work on the insureds’ water damage, contending that the language of an assignment of insurance benefits was invalid and unenforceable (Restoration 1 of Port St. Lucie v. Ark Royal Insurance Company, No. SC18-1624, Fla. Sup.).
SEATTLE — A Washington state appeals court is set to decide whether a default judgment entered against a furnace installer who failed to inquire about or defend itself from an insurance company’s lawsuit was proper (Fire Insurance Exchange v. Sunset Air Inc., No. 52359-1, Wash. App., Div. II).
ATLANTA — An insured recently asked the Georgia Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against his homeowners insurer and a water-damage remediation specialist, contending that the insurer never paid the correct actual cash value for his water damage loss (Rudolf Lippan v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, et al., No.A19A0916, Ga. App.).
ST. LOUIS — A beneficiary to a preneed cemetery trust and the trustee respond on May 2 to arguments by the special deputy receiver (SDR) for three insolvent insurers raised in a Missouri federal court over whether a merchandise and services trust remains property of a 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.).
CHICAGO — An insolvent insurer’s liquidator asked an Illinois federal court on May 3 to vacate or modify a $437,000 attorney fees award in a reinsurer’s case seeking confirmation of that award because the arbitration panel “exceeded their powers” and the award “manifestly disregards the law” (Catalina Holdings (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Jennifer Hammer, No. 18-5642, N.D. Ill.).