LAKELAND, Fla. — Insureds have asked a Florida appeals court to reverse and remand a lower court’s ruling in favor of a homeowners insurer in their breach of contract lawsuit over sinkhole damage, alleging that the lower court erred by instructing the jury that they were required to prove that the subsurface remediation recommendations by an independent engineering firm were insufficient to stabilize the land and building and repair the foundation (Joseph and Rhonda Tipton v. Old Dominion Insurance Company, No. 2D17-2276, Fla. App., 2nd Dist.).
SAN DIEGO — In a dispute over breached reinsurance agreements from fraudulent transfers, a reinsurer argues in a June 29 reply brief that a California federal court has “no legitimate reason” not to release direct payment of $734,702.68 currently held in a registry to it as well as assigning it the right to collect directly from a trust $370,714.13, in partial satisfaction of its $3.2 million judgment (Odyssey Reinsurance Co. v. Richard Keith Nagby, et al., No. 16-3038, S.D. Calif.).
HONOLULU — In a lawsuit alleging unfair or deceptive acts or practices by placing “unnecessary” insurance, with “unreasonable and inflated premiums” that included “improper compensation through illegal kickback or captive reinsurance arrangements,” banks and insurers on June 15 filed several motions to dismiss a second amended complaint filed in a Hawaii federal court (Julia Wieck v. CIT Group Inc., et al., No. 16-00596, D. Hawaii).
KEY WEST, Fla. — A Florida insured on June 19 filed suit in federal court alleging that his insurer breached a federal flood insurance policy by denying his $123,513.90 claim for supplemental Hurricane Irma damage (Shawn Cosgrove v. Wright National Flood Insurance Company, No. 18-10090, S.D. Fla.).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal on June 19 heard oral arguments in an appeal over damages on a claim for negligent procurement of insurance, a matter that the appellant argues is a case of first impression in Florida (The Lexington Club Community Association, Inc., et al. v. Love Madison, Inc., No. 4D17-1843, Fla. App., 4th Dist.).
DOVER, Del. — An insurance company is asking the Delaware Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling that awarded a company a combined $13.5 million for bad faith and breach of policy, contending that the insurer’s assertion of its coverage position in a declaratory judgment complaint cannot give rise to a finding of bad faith (Homeland Insurance Company of New York v. CorVel Corporation, No. 60, 2018, Del. Sup.).
ATLANTA — An insurer recently filed an appeal in the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals challenging a lower federal court’s ruling that its insurance policy is ambiguous and, as a result, that it owes coverage for the insured’s $1,717,000 loss caused by computer and funds transfer fraud (Principle Solutions Group LLC v. Ironshore Indemnity Inc., No. 17-11703, 11th Cir.).
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — A claimant seeking coverage for fire damage to a rental property has asked a Missouri appeals court to reverse a lower court’s judgment awarding an insurer $4,354 for attorney fees in responding to a consumer affairs complaint and $20,000 in punitive damages on its prima facie tort counterclaim arising from a fire damage claim (David Billingsley v. Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Company, No. SD35102, Mo. App., Southern Dist.).
DENVER — A panel of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 15 heard oral arguments in a case in which a man contends that the insurer that denied his claim for long-term disability (LTD) had a conflict of interest and its decision to deny his benefits on the basis of the pre-existing condition limitation was “arbitrary and capricious” (Michael Green v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 17-1383, 10th Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA — An insurance company recently told the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that it should reverse a federal judge in Pennsylvania’s ruling awarding summary judgment to a policy holder because the man breached the terms of the policy by failing to appear for an independent medical examination (IME) by a doctor of the company’s choosing (William H. Scott v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Co., No. 17-3769, 3rd Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — Two insurers recently submitted arguments to a California appeals court as to whether a jury’s verdict should be vacated, which held that one of the insurers should be fully reimbursed for benefits paid to an employee of a successor company that was not listed on workers’ compensation policy (Zenith Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, No. B284295, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 2).
LOS ANGELES — In a dispute between two insurers over the duty to indemnify a default judgment in a construction defects case against an insured, one insurer argues to a California appeals court in a May 25 brief that the other cannot prevail against it in a direct action because the default judgment is void and not covered (The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. American Safety Indemnity Co., No. B283684, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 8).
WILMINGTON, Del. — An insured on June 15 sued its excess insurer in Delaware Superior Court, seeking coverage for a class action challenging the constitutionality of its subsidiary’s private probationary services (Providence Service Corporation v. Illinois Union Insurance Company, No. 18C-06-114, Del. Super.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A commercial general liability insurer on May 30 asked the Fourth District California Court of Appeal to reverse a lower court’s finding that penalties for the crime of secretly recording confidential communications under California Penal Code Section 632 can be shifted onto an insurer, arguing that the lower court’s ruling violates public policy (Nautilus Insurance Company v. Monique Mingione, No. G055914, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3).
NEW YORK — A life insurer argues in its June 4 reply brief that a New York federal court should certify for interlocutory appeal a ruling forcing a $50 million Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit against a reinsurance executive and others to be arbitrated (Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Co., et al. v. Moshe M. Feuer, et al., No. 16-7646, S.D. N.Y.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — In a South Carolina federal court dispute involving a bank sued for its role as trustee of a reinsurance trust for an insolvent insurer, an insurer in a June 7 filing opposes the bank’s motion to compel the identity and production of documents related to damages (Accident Insurance Company Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al., No. 16-2621, D. S.C.).
HELENA, Mont.— An insured who sought coverage for injuries incurred in a vehicle accident and an insurer recently submitted arguments to the Montana Supreme Court, disputing whether a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment for the insurer and finding that underinsured motorist coverage under the policy was $2,500 should be affirmed (Jamie Cramer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, DA 17-0658, Mont. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on May 15 in a case in which a hotel company contends that an indoor air exclusion provision in an insurance policy is ambiguous when it is applied to the third-party carbon monoxide poisoning claims for which it seeks coverage (Siloam Springs Hotel LLC v. Century Surety Company, No. 17-6208, 10th Cir.).
NEW ORLEANS — An insurer recently asked the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s finding that it has a duty to defend against an underlying lawsuit alleging that an insured failed to timely negotiate a commercial lease agreement (2200 West Alabama Inc. v. Western World Insurance Co., 17-20640, 5th Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — An insurer recently asked the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling that a conference center is entitled to coverage as an additional insured, arguing that a minor’s injuries from a zip-lining accident did not arise out any portion of the premises the conference center leased to the insured (Great American Alliance Insurance Co. v. Windermere Baptist Conference Center Inc., et al., 17-3635, 8th Cir.).