SANTA ANA, Calif. — Dismissal of an insured business’s breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit against its business interruption insurers for failure to pay lost income benefits stemming from government closures due to the novel coronavirus pandemic is warranted because the plain language of the policy precludes coverage under its virus exclusion, one of the insurers argues in an Oct. 8 motion to dismiss filed in California federal court (Long Affair Carpet and Rug Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 20-1713, C.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — A 1973 reinsurance certificate only covers an insurer’s expenses that were covered by the insurance policy, a reinsurer argues in its Oct. 15 appellee brief to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals asking that the court uphold a lower court’s finding of no breach of contract with regards to denied asbestos billings of $2.7 million (Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., No. 19-1241, 2nd Cir.).
FORT WORTH, Texas — There is no reference to “claw back” payments in a quota share reinsurance agreement, a Cayman Islands reinsurer tells a Texas federal court in its Oct. 16 reply brief in support of dismissing an insurance agent’s declaratory judgment action regarding potential future demands for the return of any premiums (Contractor Managing General Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Greenlight Reinsurance, Ltd., No. 20-996, N.D. Texas).
LOS ANGELES — The parent companies of a reinsurer say in their Oct. 16 reply brief that a California federal court should dismiss four insurers’ intentional interference and inducement of breach of contract case with regard to reinsurance billings because the insurers “conflate holding an ownership interest in a company with acting as an agent for that same company” (California Capital Insurance Company, et al. v. Enstar Holdings [US] LLC, et al., No. 20-7806, C.D. Calif.).
AUSTIN, Texas — An insurer recently asked the Texas Supreme Court to “resolve a growing split among” the Texas appeals courts and reject an insured’s invocation of Texas’ Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) “solely as a pretext to obtain otherwise unrecoverable attorney’s fees” (Allstate Insurance Company v. Daniel Wes Irwin, No. 19-0885, Texas Sup.).
NEWARK, N.J. — The owners of more than 120 franchise locations under the brands Wendy's, T.G.I. Friday's, Marriott and Hilton on Oct. 12 sued their all-risk commercial business insurer in a federal court in New Jersey for breach of contract and reformation, alleging that physical loss and damage caused by the novel coronavirus “directly led” to their subsequent $40,798,390 in economic damages (Manhattan Partners LLC, et al. v. American Guaranty and Liability Insurance Company, No. 20-cv-14342, D. N.J.).
NEW YORK — A former member of Platinum Management (NY) LLC on Sept. 29 asked a New York federal court to preclude any references to punitive damages in his trial over a breach of fiduciary claim regarding the collapse of hedge funds and to exclude punitive damages from the jury’s instructions (In re Platinum-Beechwood Litigation, No. 18-6658, Martin Trott, et al. v. Platinum Management [NY] LLC, et al., No. 18-10936, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a Sept. 16 cross-appeal filed in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a commercial general liability insurer argues that Yahoo forfeited its claim to $618,380 in attorney fees under Brandt v. Superior Court in their data privacy coverage dispute but defends the lower court’s ruling that the policy’s deductible coverage endorsement is enforceable and precludes coverage for additional damages (Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 19-16475, 9th Cir.).
RALEIGH, N.C. — An insurer that is in rehabilitation filed three similar motions on Oct. 12 to dismiss bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty counterclaims brought by borrowers to loan agreements whom the insurer in three separate lawsuits accuses of breaching payments worth millions of dollars under their loan agreements (Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company v. Kite Asset Management, LLC, No. 20-371; Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company v. Summerville Asset Management, LLC, et al., No. 20-432; Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company v. TAC Investments, LLC, No. 20-453, E.D. N.C.).
CINCINNATI — An insurer argues in its Oct. 9 appellant brief to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that all the elements of claim preclusion have been met and, therefore, the appellate court should reverse a lower court’s denial of its motion to dismiss an insured’s breach of contract and bad faith suit arising out of the insured’s liability for underlying asbestos claims (William Powell Company v. National Indemnity Company, et al., No. 20-3737, 6th Cir.).
MIAMI — A theater operator voluntarily dismissed a French reinsurance company on Oct. 5 from its proposed class action in a Florida federal court for pandemic loss more than a month after the reinsurer sought dismissal on the basis that it was not a party to the all-risk insurance policy at issue (Actors Playhouse Productions, Inc. v. SCOR SE, et al., No. 20-22981, S.D. Fla.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — Delaware insureds on Sept. 22 asked the state's highest court to reverse a lower court's ruling that granted a homeowners insurer's motion for summary judgment, arguing that coverage exists for a pedestrian bridge and wall that was damaged during a rainstorm (Eric Monzo, et al. v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co., No. 199,2020, Del. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insured on Sept. 8 asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court's ruling in favor of its insurer in a lawsuit seeking coverage for its alleged "security failure" that was caused by a phishing attack by an unknown perpetrator, contending that a letter demanding monetary relief from one of its clients constituted a "claim" under its "security & privacy risk response" policy (Alorica Inc. v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. 20-55458, 9th Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — In seeking dismissal of four insurers' dispute over the mishandling of reinsurance billings, the parent companies of the reinsurer on Oct. 2 argue to a California federal court that it "is blackletter law that agents cannot be liable for intentional interference with contracts or for inducing a principal to breach those contracts" (California Capital Insurance Company, et al. v. Enstar Holdings [US] LLC, et al., No. 20-7806, C.D. Calif.).
FORT WORTH, Texas — Noting its dispute has been ongoing for more than two years, an insurance agent in an Oct. 2 brief tells a Texas federal court that there is no reason to dismiss its declaratory judgment action regarding a Cayman Islands reinsurer's potential future demands for the return of any premiums under a quota share reinsurance agreement (Contractor Managing General Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Greenlight Reinsurance, Ltd., No. 20-996, N.D. Texas).
SAN FRANCISCO — The franchisee of Outback Steakhouse restaurants in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and California and its parent and affiliated companies on Sept. 29 sued an insurer in a California federal court, alleging that an all-risk insurance policy unambiguously provides coverage for its "direct and/or imminent physical loss" and property damage related to the novel coronavirus (Out West Restaurant Group Inc., et al. v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company, No. 20-06786, N.D. Calif.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — In a coverage suit over a $73.21 million medical malpractice verdict, insureds argues in a Sept. 28 supplemental brief to a Delaware court that a Bermuda health care umbrella insurer is a "certified reinsurer" in the state and that jurisdictional discovery is permitted on its parents, subsidiaries and affiliates' operations (Steadfast Insurance Company v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., No. N18C-11-127, Del. Super., New Castle Co.).
LOS ANGELES — A motion picture production company on Sept. 9 filed suit in a California federal court alleging that its insurer refused to extend its “film producers risk” insurance policy when the production of the movie “Hypnotic” starring Ben Affleck was delayed by risks associated with the novel coronavirus pandemic and instead indicated that the policy would be “renewed” with the addition of an exclusion for losses relating to the coronavirus (Hoosegow [Hypnotic] Productions Inc. v. Chubb National Insurance Company, No. 20-08253, C.D. Calif.).
ATLANTA — An administrator of vehicle service contracts and a reinsurance program on Aug. 24 pushed back in two responses to a car dealership and reinsurer's efforts to have the Georgia Supreme Court review a reversal of confirmation for their $462,781 arbitration award on the basis that an arbitrator "unlawfully departed" from a producer agreement's terms on the administration of vehicle service contracts and reinsurance program (Adventure Motorsports Reinsurance Ltd., et al. v. Interstate National Dealer Services Inc., Nos. S21C0015 & S21C0008, Ga. Sup.).
PITTSBURGH — A business insurer on Sept. 25 filed a supplemental and amended notice of appeal in a Pennsylvania federal court indicating that it will ask the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court's remand of a restaurant insured's coverage lawsuit seeking recovery of its damages caused by the coronavirus and governmental closure orders after it attempted three times to remove the lawsuit to federal court (DiAnoia's Eatery LLC v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co., No. 20-787, W.D. Pa.).