BOSTON — An operator of day care centers sued its commercial property insurance provider in Massachusetts federal court on June 29, alleging that the insurer breached its contract with the insured and acted in bad faith in failing to provide business interruption coverage after the day care centers were forced to limit their business operations to families of first responders in response to the commonwealth’s implementation of a stay-at-home order in the wake of the novel coronavirus pandemic (Pakachoag Acres Day Care Center Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., No. 20-40083, D. Mass.).
PHILADLEPHIA — Philadelphia restaurants on June 19 sued their insurers for breach of contract and bad faith in a Pennsylvania court, contending that they “have had to incur expenses in cleaning up the pollution and contamination caused by the novel coronavirus and this clean-up continues to the present and likely will continue into the foreseeable future” (The Marathon Grill Inc., et al. v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co., et al., No. 200600918, Pa. Comm. Pls., Philadelphia Co.).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Dismissal of insureds’ claims for homeowners insurance coverage in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit stemming from a home fire is warranted because the insureds have failed to sufficiently state a cause of action for any of their claims, an insurer argues in a June 25 motion to dismiss filed in Florida federal court (Nick Maounis, et al. v. AIG Property Casualty Co., No. 20-80730, S.D. Fla.).
BOSTON — Reinsurers ask a Massachusetts federal court in a June 26 memorandum to compel an insurer to provide documents that would explain how the insurer allocated in its reinsurance billings a $120 million settlement involving environmental claims against its insured (Certain London Market Company Reinsurers v. Lamorak Insurance Co., No. 18-10534, D. Mass.).
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — An insurer argues in a June 25 brief that an Alabama federal court should deny a reinsurer’s request to dismiss claims for bad faith refusal to pay and “decline to create an exception that preemptively absolves reinsurers from bad faith claims” (Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., No. 20-300, M.D. Ala.).
WAUKESHA, Wis. — A commercial general liability insurer recently asked a Wisconsin appeals court to find that a lower court’s final judgment order in a coverage dispute over underlying claims against a medical company insured “wrongly went too far” by imposing on it a duty to indemnify and violated the “law of the case” doctrine (West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. Ixthus Medical Supply Inc., et al., No. 2020AP237, Wis. App., Dist. 2).
SAN FRANCISCO — An insured recently asked the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a lower federal court’s ruling that its insurer has no duty to defend it against an underlying trademark dispute (Premier Pools Management Corp. v. Colony Insurance Corp., No. 18-16551, 9th Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — Dismissal of an insured bar’s claims in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit stemming from its insurer’s denial of its business income loss coverage claim for losses sustained when the bar was forced to cease operations as a result of the spread of the novel coronavirus is necessary because the insured’s policy explicitly excludes coverage for such losses under a virus exclusion, the insurer argues in a June 3 motion to dismiss filed in California federal court (Pez Seafood DTLA LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co., et al., No. 20-4699, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Two bars sued their insurer in California federal court on June 18, alleging that the insurer breached the terms of their insurance policies and acted in bad faith in denying their claims for business interruption coverage after they were forced to cease operations in light of San Francisco’s shelter-in-place orders issued to combat the novel coronavirus pandemic (Grubstake Holdings LLC, et al. v. First Mercury Insurance Co., No. 20-4060, N.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES —A homeowner on June 11 sued her insurer in a California court for breach of contract, bad faith and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), alleging that the insurer unreasonably adjusted and unjustifiably denied her claim for home and personal property damage caused by the 2018 Woolsey fire (Tracey Bregman v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 20-00792, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.).
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — An insurer on June 12 asked a Michigan federal court to send to arbitration a reinsurer’s lawsuit seeking damages in excess of $3,707,961 related to the insurer’s alleged improper payments of claims under two employee benefit plans (Alliance Health & Life Insurance Company v. Symetra Life Insurance Company, No. 20-431, W.D. Mich.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An insolvent insurer’s liquidator argues in a June 8 appellee brief to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that Colorado’s insolvency law prohibits the U.S. government’s offset of payment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) risk adjustment program against the liquidator’s demand for payment under the ACA’s reinsurance program (Michael Conway v. The United States, No. 20-1292, Fed. Cir.).
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Covil Corp. in a June 4 opposition brief argues to a South Carolina federal court that an insurance agency and the South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (SCPCIGA) are properly aligned as defendants in its coverage dispute concerning the defense of underlying asbestos liabilities (Covil Corporation v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, et al., No. 20-1979, D. S.C.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — Calling it a “matter of first impression,” an automobile insurer recently asked the Delaware Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s ruling that a passenger of an insured motor vehicle could receive both bodily injury liability benefits and underinsured motorists benefits from the same policy for the same injury incurred in a one-car accident despite the language of its policy (Nationwide Insurance Company v. Angel Irizarry, No. 99, 2020, Del. Sup.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A Pennsylvania federal judge received reply briefs on June 5 from the Pennsylvania Professional Liability Joint Underwriting Association (JUA), the state’s governor and state’s General Assembly on why they should be awarded summary judgment in a case over whether recent legislation violated the JUA’s constitutional rights (Pennsylvania Professional Liability Joint Underwriting Association v. Tom Wolf, et al., No. 19-1121, M.D. Pa.).
ATLANTA — An insured’s assignee recently asked the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse a federal district court’s finding that coverage for an underlying $60,413,112 consent judgment entered against the insured in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violation dispute is barred by the insurance policy's “invasion of privacy” exclusion (Jacob Horn, et al. v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., No. 19-12525, 11th Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — A class action complaint for breach of contract, bad faith and violations of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500 was filed against a travel insurer in a California federal court on June 2, alleging that the insurance policy “specifically provides coverage benefits for trip cancellation due to various stated occurrences, including ‘Being hijacked or Quarantined’” (Richard Robbins v. Generali Global Assistance, Inc., et al., No. 20-04904, C.D. Calif.).
BATON ROUGE, La. — A Florida banker argues in a June 4 reply brief that she should not be forced into a rehabilitator’s Louisiana federal court suit over aiding and abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims concerning loans that misled state insurance regulators on an insolvent insurer’s finances (James J. Donelon v. Jeffrey C. Pollick, et al., No. 20-177, M.D. La.).
NEW YORK — A Puerto Rico life insurer in a June 4 motion asks for confirmation from a New York federal court of a $524,009,051.26 arbitration award to be used as security for a Bermuda reinsurer’s liabilities in a dispute concerning improper asset divestments for a reinsurance trust (PB Life and Annuity Co. Ltd. v. Universal Life Insurance Co., No. 20-2284, S.D. N.Y.).
PHILADELPHIA — An insurer on June 5 moved for judgment on the pleadings in a Pennsylvania federal court challenging a restaurant owner insured’s complaint seeking a declaration that its all-risk insurance policy covers any current and future civil authority closures of Philadelphia County restaurants due to physical loss or damage from the novel coronavirus and provides business income coverage if the coronavirus causes a loss or damage at its restaurant (LH Dining L.L.C. v. Admiral Indemnity Company, No. 20-01869, E.D. Pa.).